Woodward Project

[Johnlodge]

Good ideas all around. But I do not think Royal Oak or Birmingham counts or should count as the urban "core" of the region. Only the center of Detroit should count, and a core shouldn't be linear. Woodward is just one one the main spokes radiating from the true core, not the core itself. Michigan Ave in Dearborn, for example, has far more institutions and "anchors" than Woodward in Oakland, including UM-Dearbornn and the Henry Ford. The true core consists of Downtown-Midtown-New Center, Corktown-Mexicantown, Eastern Market and Rivertown. There is much more to the core than Woodward. We need to build a true core with continuous vibrant neighborhoods side by side in a cluster surrounding Downtown on all sides. Royal Oak and Birmingham might pass as urban in Metro Detroit but not in real urban cities.

I think you're looking backwards and not forwards. What you want to be the "core" just isn't anymore. His plan is far more viable than yours, which is nothing but more of the failed same and doesn't address the reality of what we now have to work with. You can't undo the damage that's been done, but tangerine's plan uses what we now have in a proactive way to move forward. What you want is to undo decades of destruction and pretend things can go back to a Shorpy photo, and it isn't going to happen. This plan provides a means for the entire region to work together and develop in a responsible manner out of decades of irresponsible development.

[casscorridor]

Who said anything about driving there? The main theme of the video is living in the corridor and walkability in the area... it's hard to picture living in Dearborn and not needing a car.

Same thing goes for RO and Birmingham. I can't imagine living there without a car unless I lived in the immediate "downtown" area. How many people actually live without cars in these areas? Close to no one so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

[casscorridor]

I don't think they are bad ideas I just tink its silly to build a linear city. This plan ignores Southwest, East Riverfront, Dearborn and other areas with incredible potential. The video is excellent when it says we need to start thinking in terms of the whole metro, but that is precisley what it does not do by carving a regional identity out of Woodward while ignoring other areas that need to be included.

[cman710]

casscorridor, I do not think tangerine's proposal is mutually exclusive with others. I completely agree that efforts also need to be focused on reviving other vibrant areas of the metro region and not just Woodward. In fact, I think redevelopment plans focused on a few different areas within the city and region will be necessary.

I think the advantage of the Woodward approach is that it might provide a way to get beyond city/surburban divides. [[I acknowledge this will be extremely difficult, but it at least represents a creative option for moving in the right direction.) Another advantage is that it already incorporates the areas of the region that are most "walkable," and Woodward thus provides the best starting point for that vision. There is room for other visions as well, though.

[Gistok]

I have to agree with Cman710... we cannot just build a bunch of 1/2 spokes radiating from the center of the region... we have to build one entire spoke at a time... and the most intact and most important of those spokes is the Woodward corridor.... which makes for a good start.

[English]

Great video! Have you thought about sharing your project with the gubernatorial candidates?

[East Detroit]

Good news for people living at Gratiot & Seymour.
The reason they are in poverty is because their neighborhood isn't walkable and we picked the wrong industry. Oh what an embarrassment.
It isn't because our industry is suffering and jobs are being exported.

The reason people moved to the suburbs is because Detroit wasn't walkable.
It wasn't because people wanted less expensive housing with bigger lots.
It wasn't because people wanted to divide along lines of race.
It wasn't because they then decided they could build new corporate buildings in the suburbs and avoid the other race altogether.

Go show your powerpoint to people at Gratiot & Seymour who aren't on the Internet, and see what they think.
I think they would think its neat to have mass transit and a walkable Woodward.
I think they would think its even neater to have jobs that the Woodward Corridor would not create.

Captains of industry are sitting right out there in rich Oakland County. Your own pictures show it.
They aren't complaining that they can't walk Woodward in Detroit.

Stop with the "I am embarrassed to be from Detroit and we shouldn't be building cars" bullshit.
Start buying our products and visiting the storefronts in Detroit and then transit will come.
Not the other way around.

[wolverine]

Good news for people living at Gratiot & Seymour.
The reason they are in poverty is because their neighborhood isn't walkable and we picked the wrong industry. Oh what an embarrassment.
It isn't because our industry is suffering and jobs are being exported.

The reason people moved to the suburbs is because Detroit wasn't walkable.
It wasn't because people wanted less expensive housing with bigger lots.
It wasn't because people wanted to divide along lines of race.
It wasn't because they then decided they could build new corporate buildings in the suburbs and avoid the other race altogether.

Go show your powerpoint to people at Gratiot & Seymour who aren't on the Internet, and see what they think.
I think they would think its neat to have mass transit and a walkable Woodward.
I think they would think its even neater to have jobs that the Woodward Corridor would not create.

Captains of industry are sitting right out there in rich Oakland County. Your own pictures show it.
They aren't complaining that they can't walk Woodward in Detroit.

Stop with the "I am embarrassed to be from Detroit and we shouldn't be building cars" bullshit.
Start buying our products and visiting the storefronts in Detroit and then transit will come.
Not the other way around.

Or you could look at it like this. When certain jobs vaporized [[particularly manufacturing, these residents that found work elsewhere were replaced by a new batch of people. They changed the neighborhoods, but were attracted there in the first place by existing building stock, density, walkability, and transit.

It's not "the other way around." More like "something else." Go ahead and make a different video for a dated premise. As for the people I graduated with. Don't really care about yards, or who we live next door to, and it would be lame working for some corporation way out near the airport. Even though it's still tough getting a job out there and people will choose almost anything, this generation is searching for work in the cities.

[East Detroit]

Start buying our products and visiting the storefronts in Detroit and then transit will come.

That means more than just going to a baseball game and running back to your car.

Funny how Angelina's is so empty after the games and I can sit in there and watch hundreds of people run past.
Actually, it's not very funny at all.

This [[my) generation seems to happily hang out in upper Woodward.
I don't think they will take the train South of 8 mile to check out the empty stores any more than they do now.
Call my comments dated if you will, but I don't believe it is dated to expect the horse before the cart.
It is also not dated to embrace the good things that we DO have, rather than constantly bitching and pining for Detroit to be like another city with another city's industry while snubbing our own. What is getting dated is the obsession for ruins and the glee and armchair quarterbacking with which people post the latest closing of the latest store in the Compuware building that they went to one or zero times.

Royal Oak didn't take off in the 80s because of transit.
It took off because people invested in stores and other people went to them [[in their cars).
And now Royal Oak is building fake lofts. And a new mega-theatre complex. All without transit.

[wolverine]

You have things switched. Residents, and business don't attract transit. In North American history, transit either came before entire blocks of buildings were built OR they heavily built up the density where the neighborhood already existed. We could look at a more modern example in Toronto where construction of the Bloor-Danforth subway line led to a frenzy of skyscraper construction in the 60's, replacing two to three story buildings.

In Chicago, entire clusters of new highrises are concentrated around EL stations in neighborhoods distant from downtown. Mass transit has always been in that spot for almost a century, but it's only been recent that people have become obssessed with using it as their primary means of getting around. So much that they are wiling to pay far more to live close to one of those noisey stations. And the new towers just keep coming. When can this happen in Detroit?

As for your Royal Oak example, that's great and all. I'd wager to say it was because the city held onto its wealth and kept a healthy chunk of their downtown around. It's a walkable place, and obviously validates the point made in the video. Yes I agree with you its important residents shop local and be a part of their community. It's definitely one of the things that make a great city. I can't understand though why you seem to discount the other points made in the video as you did in your original post.

[fryar]

Tangerine, I finally got around to watching your video. I wholeheartedly agree with your group's analysis [[video #1) and vision [[video #2).

I laughed heartily at your phrasing at 6:32, "our suburbs have the urban flair of a truck stop." A perfect description of some areas, I have never been able to put it so well.

If you will allow me, at 2:03, there is a typo. I believe it should read Nowhere were its results more catastrophic. Apologies, not trying to take away from your thunder, and so forth. It's still a really well-done video.

[casscorridor]

The problem with calling RO "urban" or "walkable" is that only the "downtown" is truly walkable. They have a walkable suburban business district. Sure, much of Detroit is a similar layout of a grid pattern of single family homes spaced close together. But the core of Detroit doesnt follow this pattern. There are more diverse housing options, and empty land to redevelop as high density.

As far as Woodward being the core or Downtown somehow not being the core, look at the SMART bus map and see where lines lead, it will be clear where the center of the region is.

And as far as building up one linear corridor at a time, that is fooolish because you ignore leave valuable assets and leave strategic areas underdeveloped. We should be bold and demand nothing less that rail transit on all spokes leading to the core of Detroit.

[detmsp]

The problem with calling RO "urban" or "walkable" is that only the "downtown" is truly walkable.

You've already made the same point about Birmingham. What you don't seem to get that this video is about the Woodward Corridor, which is precisely where Royal Oak and Birmingham's downtown areas are located!

[Gistok]

And as far as building up one linear corridor at a time, that is fooolish because you ignore leave valuable assets and leave strategic areas underdeveloped. We should be bold and demand nothing less that rail transit on all spokes leading to the core of Detroit.

OK... I'm going to be bold here.... sounds like you need a reality check... [[I wish forumer PQZ were here to finish the comments)...

What can you do if there is NO MONEY?? Your comments are pure pipe dreams if there is no money to spend... the city has none... the county and state have none.... and the feds are way overdrawn...

So your all or nothing idea is going to get us the same results since the 1970s.... ZIPPO!

If piecemeal development is the only route [[as it appears to be)... then we should take that route and start with Woodward.... all other scenarios will continue to lead us nowhwere....

[emu steve]

I have to agree with Cman710... we cannot just build a bunch of 1/2 spokes radiating from the center of the region... we have to build one entire spoke at a time... and the most intact and most important of those spokes is the Woodward corridor.... which makes for a good start.

One of the themes of my posts on this site has been Woodward corridor.

Be it a new arena for Woodward north of the Fisher [[other sites, such as the Tiger Stadium site woud be a complete zero for development).

Developement in and around WSU.

Development between the central business district and WSU.

Rail along Woodward form the CBD headed as far north as feasible.

And, of course, development in the central business district.

If Detroit can not revitalize Woodward it never will be able to do so along any other major roadway.

IF we get a new arena on Woodward north of the Fisher, rail along Woodward, continued development around WSU [[e.g., the Cass/Canfield project, maybe another WSU apartment complex), and some nice 'in fill' development between 94 and the Fisher, Woodward has a chance in say 10 - 15 years, the economy permitting, to be a case study of urban re-growth.

There is the chance of reaching 'critical mass' along Woodward.

The biggest problem, I see, is a tough economy which is a drag.

[Hermod]

EHave more quality boutiques up Woodward in Detroit as you do on Old Woodward in Birmingham, Main Street in Royal Oak, The Village on Kercheval Avenue in Grosse Pointe, etc. .

Because the success of "quality boutiques" is based on having "quality customers"?

[English]

Because the success of "quality boutiques" is based on having "quality customers"?

Yes, of course. The wrong sort of people live along the Woodward Corridor in Detroit. All those thugs in Palmer Woods, the New Center, and the Millender have totally ruined the stores.

Quality is subjective. Why not just say "customers with lots of disposable income?"

[fryar]

I agree with Gistok's comments to casscorridor because of the critical mass aspect emu steve mentioned. Do it successfully and give people a chance to see the results.

I'm not sure stasu1213 was necessarily talking about customers with disposable incomes. I think he or she was talking about wide sidewalks that allow outside seating for a restaurant, say, about the frontage, and all that kind of thing. Obviously the "quality" of the customers, as it were, is also a relevant issue, but I took stasu1213's comment to suggest making zoning law changes, say, to promote a coherent sidewalk setting, instead of utilitarian concrete blocks selling liquor.

[Mackinaw]

Very nice work. Keep pushin it.

[dtowncitylover]

The problem with calling RO "urban" or "walkable" is that only the "downtown" is truly walkable..

No, not true. Try again! Many of Royal Oak's students WALK to school. I WALK to my aunt's house often. I was told by a friend of mine, that I could have WALKED to ABE today if I had wanted to. I didn't 'cause I was with friend's and they picked me up. I have walked to the grocery store, to the dentist, to National Coney Island, to the barber, and to school [[when I was in school). No the city is not Shelby Twp or Highland Twp, Royal Oak as a whole is a very walkable suburb.

[English]

^ I would argue that RO is more walkable than the Detroit neighborhood I grew up in. You can get to most things that you need on foot. In my 'hood, that just wasn't an option.

The only issue that I've heard with the Woodward corridor between 8 Mile and Birmingham is with the housing stock. People don't always appreciate older homes on smaller lots. One of the appeals of the more far-flung areas is new construction. As long as people want 4000 sq ft homes with granite countertops, stainless appiiances, etc. older 'burbs will find it difficult to compete.

The Woodward Corridor schools are also an issue for some with young families. We all know DPS' problems, but RO and Ferndale's systems aren't top choice for many middle class families looking for a top-notch district, no matter what their race or ethnicity. Of course, parents with means select Bloomfield and B'ham for good schools. Berkley schools were considered very good but my knowledge is a bit out of date.

[Hermod]

Yes, of course. The wrong sort of people live along the Woodward Corridor in Detroit. All those thugs in Palmer Woods, the New Center, and the Millender have totally ruined the stores.

Quality is subjective. Why not just say "customers with lots of disposable income?"

Trying to match the "quality" in "quality boutiques". Obviously, if there were ENOUGH "customers with disposable income" living along Woodward in Detroit, there would be "quality boutiques".

[Cooper]

Tangerine, I find your video quite persuasive. In fact, I just finished making a similar argument myself:

http://www.rethinkdetroit.org/2010/0...nect-the-dots/

[English]

Trying to match the "quality" in "quality boutiques". Obviously, if there were ENOUGH "customers with disposable income" living along Woodward in Detroit, there would be "quality boutiques".

I know. I was just being difficult. It's been a trying week here in the D.

[Cooper]

The problem with calling RO "urban" or "walkable" is that only the "downtown" is truly walkable. They have a walkable suburban business district. Sure, much of Detroit is a similar layout of a grid pattern of single family homes spaced close together. But the core of Detroit doesnt follow this pattern. There are more diverse housing options, and empty land to redevelop as high density.

As far as Woodward being the core or Downtown somehow not being the core, look at the SMART bus map and see where lines lead, it will be clear where the center of the region is.

And as far as building up one linear corridor at a time, that is fooolish because you ignore leave valuable assets and leave strategic areas underdeveloped. We should be bold and demand nothing less that rail transit on all spokes leading to the core of Detroit.

I agree that Detroit's urban core is the heart of the region and ought to see the most and the densest development, but I don't see why that should exclude developing the Woodward corridor. Urbanism is not a zero-sum game. As a region, I think we could sustain several urban corridors connecting to downtown Detroit, including Michigan Avenue out to Dearborn, Jefferson out to the Pointes, and Woodward out to Birmingham.

I think if we ignore the suburbs entirely, it will be at our peril. The truth is that Metro Detroit's assets are scattered across the region. It would be great if all our major corporations were still located downtown, but they're not. We need to work with what we have and find ways to reconnect the region as a whole. Some areas might be too car-oriented to be retrofitted [[I'm thinking M-59), but the inner ring suburbs have walkable downtowns and street grids that are comparable to Detroit. I don't we should let political boundaries obscure that fact.