DetNews: Midtown development sparks battles

[dcmorrison12]

I have absolutely been mistaken. There is no truth or fact behind my statement of Campus Village being racist. This was simply a silly statement made in haste. I have never truly seen any action on behalf of campus village or the employees that could really make me truly believe that this company is racist. As for how much they have invested in the campus - being that I'm a lower-level employee - I would not have access to any records or information to verify. Therefore, my statements of them not up-keeping the property are irrelevant. There was absolutely no fact behind any of the statements I said. I hope that you all can visit these properties and view for yourself the quality and value of the buildings.

[DetroitPlanner]

I don't ever recall Mackenzie being a bookstore. In the mid-70's I went there as part of a school trip to the cultural center and we had lunch in the eating area on the first floor. In the 80's I was in there all the time as a high school student or undergraduate. I did have to go up into the offices quite a bit to meet with people, and both the offices and the elavators were substandard. Most times I would fear getting stuck in the elavator. Towards the end there were buckets everywhere to catch water. While I loved the look of the building it was literally a hazard. Yes you're right it was replaced by a standard parking structure, which is ashame.

We have a tendency to hold on to old structures here far too long. No one ever asks when gooing to Chicago, what was here before it was the State of Illinois building they just look up from the lobby and stare in amazement. No one wonders what was at the Michigan Theatre prior to it becoming a theatre, then ultimately into the strangest parking strucutre the orld has ever seen. This was where Henry Ford built his first quadracycle and intoduced it to Detroit Streets via the long-gone alley behind his home. In the 20's and 30's we were too busy building monuments to our prosperity to care about our past. However, in many ways we are stuck in this muck sometimes by holding onto things too long that it keeps us from progressing, but there is no usefulness left in the remaining outdated.

I would hope there is something that can be done to marry the needs for new housing and keep the integrity of the old streetfronts. Washington D.C. has several examples of projects that keep at least a portion of the old building intact while building newer buildings either behind the existing structure of facade in Georgetown and Foggy Bottom, both home to universities.

[Detroitnerd]

We have a tendency to hold on to old structures here far too long.

That's funny, I thought we had a tendency to rush to tear schitt down. You know, like, with no plans to replace it with anything.

[DetroitPlanner]

That's funny, I thought we had a tendency to rush to tear schitt down. You know, like, with no plans to replace it with anything.

I know you're being partly sarcastic, but it really is bizarre when you think about some of the things we build, tear down, or keep. This is what I was trying to convey. Its kind of heard to be succinct when there is no clear pattern!

[rjlj]

So Detroitplanner, you are saying we hold on to building too long and should get rid of them but we should keep them to remember the past such as in the case of where Henry Ford built his first quadracycle. Got it, makes perfect sense.

[Detroitnerd]

I know you're being partly sarcastic, but it really is bizarre when you think about some of the things we build, tear down, or keep. This is what I was trying to convey. Its kind of heard to be succinct when there is no clear pattern!

At least Chicago has plans to BUILD SOMETHING NEW when they knock stuff down. And then people don't mourn what's lost as much. You know, sort of like how we can walk around the city and see the footprints of Hotel Tuller, the Statler, Hudson's, Tiger Stadium, and can just look at what ISN'T there. That's the mentality here; just knock it down. Somebody'll come along and built sumptin'. [[And then people wonder why Detroiters are saddened by what "used to be" there.)

[Gistok]

Detroitplanner... I agree that the building [[like very old hotels) where the rooms are much too small... and would not fit into the modern airy open floor plans of building... but there is a big difference between getting rid of old buildings because they're outdated... and getting rid of them because maintenance has been deferred for too long [[a new roof could have prevented the use of those buckets).

When you mention outdated buildings... Washington's Old Post Office was to have been torn down to complete the Federal Triangle. It was a very outdated building... but it was brought back and remodeled for modern office/retail use. Granted not every building can be so refurbished... but more often than not I believe that the remodeling of old buildings is often dismissed without even a study being done of what the potential is. Those old buildings were built solid... to last centuries [[with proper maintenance!)... the buildings that usually takes their place.... not so.

When I went to WSU in the early 70s, the bookstore was indeed in Mackenzie Hall... in the section of the building along Cass closer to Warren Ave.

[DetroitPlanner]

When I went to WSU in the early 70s, the bookstore was indeed in Mackenzie Hall... in the section of the building along Cass closer to Warren Ave.

That was career guidance when I went there.

The D.C. Post office was one of the developments I saw in High School that inspired me to study architecture and urban planning. One of my favorite things to do in DC is to take the ride up to the top of the tower and take in a better view than those who wait for hours to go up the Washington monument have.

The difference between DC and here however is that there is an economic incentive in saving the old structures. Sure preservation credits were enacted at the state level to help even this out, but since then the economy has been in terrible shape. You see economic incentives saving old building the most with the theatres. We have an environment that was built for 2 million plus people in the City proper yet less than 900k live here. Sure there has been growth in the suburbs at the expense of the City proper, but now even new suburban areas are having occupancy problems. Its a tough problem to solve.

[Detroitnerd]

We have an environment that was built for 2 million plus people in the City proper yet less than 900k live here. Sure there has been growth in the suburbs at the expense of the City proper, but now even new suburban areas are having occupancy problems. Its a tough problem to solve.

I don't think it's that hard to solve.

1) Unite Oakland, Macomb and Wayne counties into one supercity. That's 5 million people right there, all under one government.

2) Use tax credits, subsidies and other incentives to encourage people to live in urbanized dense areas.

3) Use taxes, fees and other disincentives to let exurban areas become productive farmland again.

With any luck, by 2040, the we'll have a more intelligent arrangement of our 5 millions along denser corridors, served by real transit and using less resources. Which will be terrific, what with gas likely to get up to $10 a gallon.

[DetroitPlanner]

I don't think it's that hard to solve.

1) Unite Oakland, Macomb and Wayne counties into one supercity. That's 5 million people right there, all under one government.

2) Use tax credits, subsidies and other incentives to encourage people to live in urbanized dense areas.

3) Use taxes, fees and other disincentives to let exurban areas become productive farmland again.

With any luck, by 2040, the we'll have a more intelligent arrangement of our 5 millions along denser corridors, served by real transit and using less resources. Which will be terrific, what with gas likely to get up to $10 a gallon.

1) I can't see how this changes anything. We would have one large city with 4 times as many empty buildings. We have a lot of unused infrastructure everywhere.

2) I don't know how we can do this being that government is broke now. If there is substantial cost savings it could work.

3) Propose this to Pulte, Walmart and let me know what they say!

Unfortunately, gas will not hit $10 a gallon anytime soon if Hybrid and electric cars take off. Demand will decrease, and this would also decrease in emerging markets like China, India, and developing African countries. We could tax the heck out of gas and use the money to pay for transit and bike paths though!

There are no easy answers. The purpose of this thread however is to respond to a developer wanting to make a better economic use of a site along Cass. We can't go back and save Mackenzie any more than we can save Henry Ford's house on Bagley. One solution I proposed was to do what was done in Foggy Bottom DC. Does anyone think that can work? It gets us closer to saving the structures, but may not save the entire structure. For more info on it, google 2000 Pennsylvania Ave.

[Detroitnerd]

1) I can't see how this changes anything. We would have one large city with 4 times as many empty buildings. We have a lot of unused infrastructure everywhere.

Which is why this wouldn't have worked 10 years ago but could now. Everybody is feeling the pinch. The old system of "slap down concrete and the growth follows" is breaking down. If we're all in one city, we will have money to reinvest in the center of the city, and must face the reckoning that we are going to have a harder time -- governmentally, institutionally, personally -- paying for the profligate waste that is American, car-centered generica. Oh, it will still be there for those who can pay for it, but it will be hard to argue that subsidizing it produces good results for the whole supercity.

2) I don't know how we can do this being that government is broke now. If there is substantial cost savings it could work.

How about eliminating more than 50 school boards, police departments, fire departments, planning departments, inspection departments, school boards, city councils and city administrators? I think there's a nice chunk of change in there.

Unfortunately, gas will not hit $10 a gallon anytime soon if Hybrid and electric cars take off. Demand will decrease, and this would also decrease in emerging markets like China, India, and developing African countries. We could tax the heck out of gas and use the money to pay for transit and bike paths though!

I don't understand this stubborn, persistent almost denial-strength attitude that "Oh, it's OK. Gas will not be $5, $10, $15 anytime soon." Is that how we "plan" our city? By hoping and praying that the price of gas remains stable [[despite the fact that it is unlikely to trend downward at any time in the future) and hoping that some magical technical fix will prevent doom? The truth is that this isn't planning at all; it's gambling our future on what might happen, and what technical improvements might come into being. This is the opposite of planning.

[Bearinabox]

3) Propose this to Pulte, Walmart and let me know what they say!

Why do Pulte and Wal-Mart have any say in how we manage our region? This is a major problem with our political process.

[DetroitPlanner]

Why do Pulte and Wal-Mart have any say in how we manage our region? This is a major problem with our political process.

Lets see, like the owner of the buildings on Cass, they have the right to purchase and develop land. They can petition for zoning change if these parcels are all zoned urban farm. Developers also have deep pockets and politics the way it works now likes this. A plan can only do so much because it in itself is a part of the political process.

[DetroitPlanner]

I don't understand this stubborn, persistent almost denial-strength attitude that "Oh, it's OK. Gas will not be $5, $10, $15 anytime soon." Is that how we "plan" our city? By hoping and praying that the price of gas remains stable [[despite the fact that it is unlikely to trend downward at any time in the future) and hoping that some magical technical fix will prevent doom?

Economics comes into play its all supply and demand as this is a world traded commodity. There is not political will to increase gas taxes, which actually works to decrease how much everyone is paying because people drive fewer miles when costs go up, buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and the tax is affiected to the gallon, not the cost. The increasing numbers of hybrids and now electric hybrids will cut into fossil fuel usage dramatically, decreasing the cost of gasoline, but increasing the cost of coal and demand for nueclear energy.

Just what does all of this talk have to do with the original subject? This will not save these apartments. What is needed is an economic incentive to save them or an owner willing to see the advantage in chaning his development.

[Detroitnerd]

Economics comes into play its all supply and demand as this is a world traded commodity. There is not political will to increase gas taxes, which actually works to decrease how much everyone is paying because people drive fewer miles when costs go up, buy smaller more fuel efficient cars and the tax is affiected to the gallon, not the cost. The increasing numbers of hybrids and now electric hybrids will cut into fossil fuel usage dramatically, decreasing the cost of gasoline, but increasing the cost of coal and demand for nueclear energy.

So you are saying that economics might just decide that the price of gasoline will decline in the future?

You are saying that the gas tax decreases how much everybody is paying for roads because it's taxed by the gallon and people drive less? You believe that in the midst of an economic depression people are going to spend twice as much as they would on a brand-new car for a hybrid? And that enough people will do this where it the price of gasoline will go down? And that enough hybrid vehicles will sell to cause a spike in demand for coal and nukes?

I am not an economist or a geologist, but I can say one thing with fair certainty: The only place the price of gasoline is going, in the long run, is up and up and up. It will be volatile, with crashes and spikes, but it will trend ever upward until we reach a point where we cannot afford to drive the cars that are required to service our transportation needs in car-centric areas all over Detroit.

And I'm no urban planner, but it would seem hella important to prepare for the coming energy crisis by offering carrots and sticks to get our 5 millions moving into denser areas where we use less resources, all travel less, can use mass transit, bike and walk.

Just what does all of this talk have to do with the original subject? This will not save these apartments. What is needed is an economic incentive to save them or an owner willing to see the advantage in chaning his development.

You asked for a solution to the problem [[the big problem, not the small, specific one) and I offered one. And if we could do that, it would help us repopulate urban areas where multi-unit residences from the dense old days can be handily reused. So there ya go.