I think that's a shame. Lafayette Park's urban design is high quality and successful, and I'm going to assume that the restrictions were there to encourage/enforce having something compatible. And now after all this time, something is going to be built on that site they are given a variance to basically do the wrong thing. imo variances are for when, through their creativity or vision or whatever, architects/developers come up with something that is better than what was previously intended and I don't think that's the case here.
I think it's disappointing that they just plunked down their standard "mixed use/multi-family residential" building without any consideration for the site and its surroundings. In their description of the project they say "DuCharme Place lies in the shadow of one of Detroit's most venerated examples of modern architecture and urban planning - Mies Van der Rohe's Lafayette Park." and I don't get the sense that they were passionate about making something equally as good.
The part that they did put some thought into is the covered parking with landscaped roof which is imo unnecessary and expensive.
Form-wise, the neighborhood is comprised of a flat ground plane with prismatic building masses. Some buildings are raised on pilotis to emphasize that. The parking plinth interrupts that relationship between the buildings and the ground plane. The same applies to the building in general. Lafayette and Orleans is not the same as Woodward and Selden.
I think the covered parking is unnecessary because in this situation I don't think a normal surface lot would be undesireable. If the parking is going to be covered then it makes sense to do something with the roof, but the site is right in between a gigantic park and the dequindre cut so I think having more "greenspace" is overkill. The extra greenspace might be more valuable if it was in the form of private patios for individual units. I also think there's a conceptual and functional difference between rowhouses integrated with landscape [[which would be great) and apartments overlooking a landscaped parking roof.
And then the time and budget spent on the covered parking is an opportunity cost. Instead of the covered parking and landscaped roof there could have been a better facade for example. And I don't think the project was in a position to skimp on the basics for an amenity that might not even have an overall positive impact on the quality of the project.
Out of all of this I think all the building needed to be was a long box with a nice curtain wall and sensible units, and it would have worked well on its own merits as well as in the context of the neighborhood. Or it could have been a dynamic arrangement of rowhouse slabs although you wouldn't be able to fit as many units on the site. idk, whatever the case I don't think this project is as good as it could have been.
Bookmarks