  Leland_palmer Member Username: Leland_palmer Post Number: 366 Registered: 08-2004 |
Looks like the city didn't like the idea of L.A. Fitness going in there either. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070904/METRO /709040370/1003 | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2009 Registered: 06-2006 |
"The company already had a purchase agreement to sell the land to the fitness facility." Wow. That was close. I wasn't a big fan of the L.A. Fitness idea. I just hope something gets done with that plot in the next 5 years or so...been vacant way too long and it's such an awesome location | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 576 Registered: 08-2006 |
What used to be there? | ||
Leland_palmer Member Username: Leland_palmer Post Number: 367 Registered: 08-2004 |
I'm looking forward to another response from the developer on metromedia like this one...http://www.metromodemedia.com/ devnews/ROGateway0031.aspx | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 330 Registered: 11-2003 |
Good move for Royal Oak... Unfortunately, downtown RO is competing with downtown Detroit for "urban" residents. Many I've talked to in that area view themselves as the new downtown... "urban living without the urban problems" as one put it. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1559 Registered: 08-2006 |
Fareastsider, Before the fwy went through that was the location of Mathew Hargraves Chevrolet. | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2007 |
I know I'm being naive but I don't understand why every piece of land must have a building or structure on it. In my opinion, that is one of the things that makes Detroit look so ugly. Everywhere you look there's a building or structure. One thing I like about Canton is on Warren near Haggerty, the south side of the road has no buildings. It just makes the area look more pleasant. All the businesses are on the north side of the road. I hope Canton doesn't follow the mistakes of many other cities and think that they need a building in every single location. (Message edited by Crumbled_pavement on September 04, 2007) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1613 Registered: 10-2006 |
Crumbled_pavement, often times buildings can be used to frame open spaces. The most classic example of this might be something like a collegiate quad. So it is always important to have the right mix of open spaces and buildings. Most would argue that from a sustainable standpoint, Canton is not dense enough. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 85 Registered: 07-2007 |
"In my opinion, that is one of the things that makes Detroit look so ugly. Everywhere you look there's a building or structure." Are you serious? Go drive around some of Detroit's neighborhoods. You'll find more vacant land there than you will in places like Royal Oak. "I hope Canton doesn't follow the mistakes of many other cities and think that they need a building in every single location." If the Township doesn't own the property, there's not much they can do to prevent someone from developing it if that's their intent, assuming it's not unbuildable wetlands or something like that. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1533 Registered: 04-2006 |
I know I'm being naive but I don't understand why every piece of land must have a building or structure on it. In my opinion, that is one of the things that makes Detroit look so ugly. Huh? Sounds like you haven't been to many densely populated cities... | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 13 Registered: 08-2007 |
Charlottepaul, it's all about balance. I can see your point that some areas of Canton aren't dense enough but I don't think they should overdevelop. Novine, I'm dead serious. I didn't intend to say there are NO open areas in Detroit, but just drive down 7 Mile from Middlebelt to Livernois. Tell me that Detroit doesn't look ugly and CLUTTERED compared to Livonia and Redford. You could do the same down 6 Mile and Fenkell. Detroit is vastly over developed in some areas! (Message edited by Crumbled_pavement on September 04, 2007) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1614 Registered: 10-2006 |
Crumbled_pavement, maybe you are alluding to the difference between planned development and random. Small towns have a main street where small buildings and shop align right at the road (for that matter, so does much of downtown Royal Oak). Most people find those appealing. | ||
Mdoyle Member Username: Mdoyle Post Number: 195 Registered: 10-2006 |
Crumbled_pavement, have you been outside of the suburbs? This isn't meant to to be unkind but the idea that the buildings are what make cities ugly is opposite of what makes big cities. New York, LA, Chicago and yes even Detroit are big cities and Detroit should strive for maximum infill and minimum open vacant lots. Perhaps you just dont enjoy urban environments. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1285 Registered: 02-2006 |
Ugly and cluttered is not synonymous with overdeveloped. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 700 Registered: 12-2006 |
Vacant lots should be few and large, and landscaped and open to the public. You know: parks. The fitness center would have been a god-awful use of that space and I'm glad RO decided against it. If the economy right now does not justify a grand gateway into RO, then let's wait until it does. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 87 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Tell me that Detroit doesn't look ugly and CLUTTERED compared to Livonia and Redford." Lots of people out here think that Livonia and Redford are ugly and cluttered compared to their suburb. Guess it's all in ones viewpoint. | ||
Douglasm Member Username: Douglasm Post Number: 927 Registered: 10-2003 |
Fareastsider.... ....Mathew Hargrave Chevrolet was on the corner of Woodward and Washington. My mind remembers a row of shops from the edge of the used car lot to 10 Mile. It looks like a decent sized piece of property if it extends all the way to Main St. I realise it's a couple of blocks south, but why don't they just rebuild the Totem Pole and be done with it? Then it could be a gateway and semi-historical at the same time.... | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1564 Registered: 08-2006 |
There was an antique shop there I recall that had plastic horses out front, and the Arcade we frequented Alligator Alley was south of that a bit, where the freeway is now. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 704 Registered: 12-2006 |
Anyone have a pic of the famous old sign which said "Royal Oak" and then in smaller letters "ample parking"? Kind of tells you how we got to where we are... | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 1875 Registered: 02-2007 |
Has anyone noticed how many big, empty parcels Schostak and Etkin Equities have around here? I see their signs everywhere | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 135 Registered: 06-2007 |
I don't blame the city on this one.They need to do something of substance with the land.A fitness center is generic and obviously little more than a way for the seller to make money.They find any old buyer, who builds an ugly building, then goes out of buisness leaving an unappealing structure sitting there abandoned, plastered with "For Sale" signs. | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 15 Registered: 08-2007 |
"I don't blame the city on this one.They need to do something of substance with the land.A fitness center is generic and obviously little more than a way for the seller to make money.They find any old buyer, who builds an ugly building, then goes out of buisness leaving an unappealing structure sitting there abandoned, plastered with "For Sale" signs." That's exactly what I'm talking about. Except I don't necessarily agree they need to put anything in that space at all. Just my opinion. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1287 Registered: 02-2006 |
Open space for open space's sake is no better than development for development's sake. If you can come up with a good reason why and plan for the site to stay empty, great. But currently, it's a prairie-looking gulf occupying some pretty prime real estate. Want a park there? Great. But there is NO possible argument for keeping the status quo (permanently). | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 377 Registered: 05-2004 |
Tax revenue is the name of the game. That's why stuff needs to get developed so cities don't have to keep raising your taxes. Amazing how many plans have been shot down over the site. | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 1140 Registered: 11-2003 |
It's actually spelled Matthews-Hargreaves. (Message edited by Burnsie on September 04, 2007) | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 17 Registered: 08-2007 |
"Open space for open space's sake is no better than development for development's sake. If you can come up with a good reason why and plan for the site to stay empty, great. But currently, it's a prairie-looking gulf occupying some pretty prime real estate. Want a park there? Great. But there is NO possible argument for keeping the status quo (permanently)." A park works for me | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 1141 Registered: 11-2003 |
I know the city needs the tax revenue, but a well-done park would be great. It would be a refreshing oasis amidst the pavement sea of the I-696/Woodward interchange. (Message edited by Burnsie on September 04, 2007) | ||
Waz Member Username: Waz Post Number: 185 Registered: 11-2006 |
A park next to as busy intersection? How bucolic with the din and smell of traffic along 696 and Woodward, and a great place to take the kids. No, I vote for development. | ||
Dannaroo Member Username: Dannaroo Post Number: 150 Registered: 05-2006 |
quote: I actually thought the opposite - that that site would be a horrible spot for a park... its really not a large site and would seem out of scale with massive roads like Woodward, I-696, the 696 Service Drive, Main St, and Washington Ave all converging upon it. However I could definitely see them keeping some of it as green space maybe along the northern edge of the parcel, between whatever new development might actually occur and those townhouses that are there. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 379 Registered: 05-2004 |
Royal Oak has tons of parks all over the city! It needs more tax revenue. If a ball goes over the fence, do you want your kid to get it on Woodward? | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2167 Registered: 10-2003 |
I would think that a proposal for a hotel/condo high-rise with ground-floor retail and three or four levels of underground parking would be feasible on that site. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 381 Registered: 05-2004 |
Yeah, that's what they thought at one time. It never got built. The big high rise next to Dobie's on Washington was supposed to be a hotel at one time too. Lofts and condos are the rage downtown. Lots of them for sale too. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2096 Registered: 06-2006 |
Royal Oak takes stand for a dense, mixed-use development at Gateway Plaza http://www.metromodemedia.com/ devnews/ROGateway0034.aspx | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2282 Registered: 10-2003 |
Great. Now if Royal Oak leaders would only take a stand for saving the Main Theatre... | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 2338 Registered: 10-2003 |
What's happening to the Main Theatre? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 737 Registered: 12-2006 |
Apparently it is becoming the victim of a threadjack. | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 4925 Registered: 10-2003 |
To add to the density vs green space arguement... ...greenspace does not generate tax revenue... | ||
Fishtoes2000 Member Username: Fishtoes2000 Post Number: 284 Registered: 06-2005 |
quote: Studies show greenspace increases surrounding property values and therefore can generate tax revenue. (However, I am not arguing that this parcel should become a park, especially when surrounded by high-traffic roads and adjacent to huge existing greenspace -- the Zoo.) | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5319 Registered: 08-2004 |
How about one of those waterpark hotels with a skywalk over to the zoo? Another Great Wolf Lodge? Although this type of destination is not my personal favorite, it could help tie in high density family entertainment along with the zoo. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 2345 Registered: 10-2003 |
How about a Dave and Busters? Nobody is ever behind my plans for Dave and Busters.  What is not to like? Beer and video games. | ||
Atl_runner Member Username: Atl_runner Post Number: 1973 Registered: 10-2003 |
The notion that a fitness center would not be good for the area is not true. LA Fitness integrates well into urban areas, and acts as a magnet to attract people into an area. If it was a full facility, with pool etc, it would have been nothing but good for the area. The spill off from people working out, then eating or whatever in the area is substantial. Urban areas and fitness facilities are great for each other. All this would have taken, was some smart zoning and building ordinances, and this would have been a great move. Too bad it will sit vacant, or worse, be used for some non descript retail. If a hotel is built there, then fine.. that works too. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 740 Registered: 12-2006 |
Atl, did you see the proposal? It was a single stand-alone building surrounded by acres of surface parking. The fact that the proposed business was a fitness center is more or less irrelevant; it was the footprint of the building many objected to. It was in no way a good fit for an urban area, based on footprint. Now, an LA Fitness on the ground floor of a mixed-use building in an urban setting? Bring it. But this wasn't that, and it was nowhere near what the City wants to accomplish for that sight, nor anywhere near what Schostak promised when they first started talking to Royal Oak. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 2762 Registered: 06-2004 |
not really fond of the idea of high-rise there, it would really be out of place could easily see a moderately upscale, nicely designed shopping area - Whole Foods, Barnes & Noble, eateries for zoo-goers, small shops | ||
Atl_runner Member Username: Atl_runner Post Number: 1974 Registered: 10-2003 |
Professorscott.. I have not seen the design. After reading what you posted, I am in agreement with R.O going a different direction. Thanks for the information. The question is, why do these developers continue to think a building in the center of a parking lot is acceptable to anyone anymore? Those days are long gone. | ||
Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 136 Registered: 07-2006 |
I drive down washington to work every day and this week they tore down the last building on the triangular shaped parcel to the NW of this gateway plaza parcel. The last building was a photo studio in a converted single family home... the fire department had been messing around there for a few months, now that whole block is clear. Hopefully a coordinated development will occur for both peices that implements the more urban form Tim Thwing is referring to. Kudos to the DDA for keeping LA OUT. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3285 Registered: 10-2003 |
^It's not an issue with LA Fitness. It's an issue with the form of the proposed building. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 5322 Registered: 08-2004 |
Awww come on Lilpup.... it could at least be as tall as the KWAME KILPATRICK MAYOR OF DETROIT Water Tower across Woodward by the zoo! |
