  Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 21 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233 |
I am doing some research on the effects of New Urbanism in rustbelt cities and would like to use Detroit as a case study. I know that the Crosswinds Development on Woodward is considered a "new urbanist" site - any others out there that people know of or other resources? Thanks all. pmardo | ||
Solarflare Member Username: Solarflare Post Number: 538 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 65.112.56.3 |
I'd start with Capitol Park. Late evenings are the best, bring your camera. Very newurbanismy. (Message edited by solarflare on September 13, 2006) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 187 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
Capitol Park is New Jack Urbanism! Look in Corktown for infil! Look at Warrendale its Old New Urban! Check out the City of Monroe and Mason Run. It is built on a brownfield close to downtown and the river. The Whole Woodward Corridor has great examples of new townhouses, condo apartments and loft developments; too many to even begin mentioning by developer or site. The Far east side is seeing lots of Infil as well, heck even Brightmoor is getting infil housing. | ||
Reetz12 Member Username: Reetz12 Post Number: 80 Registered: 09-2005 Posted From: 216.144.213.130 |
Define "New Urbanism" | ||
Chris_rohn Member Username: Chris_rohn Post Number: 257 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 216.90.34.74 |
Pmardo, You should contact the fine folks at Archive DS, they are the local experts on "New Urbanism." http://www.archiveds.com | ||
Chris_rohn Member Username: Chris_rohn Post Number: 258 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 216.90.34.74 |
New Urbanism: http://www.cnu.org/ (for those who don't know what it is) (Message edited by chris_rohn on September 13, 2006) | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 726 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 204.44.186.129 |
Sorry, but Brush Park is not in lines with the "new Urbanism" concept, as I understand it. Brush Park is simply an infill modern development into an old neighborhood. While the development was created to fit into an urban neighborhood, there is no plan for retail or entertainment, which is usual for such "New Urbanism" developments. There are no developments meeting this description in the City of Detroit, except, perhaps, on the Riverfront. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1768 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Did you even bother to look at the CNU site? Retail and entertainment aren't definining characteristics of New Urbanism. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 188 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
hmm dunno about anyone else but the Riverfront is the last thing I would think of current new urbanist sites in Rustbelt Cities. Brush Park re-establishes a wall of homes on Woodward. It is certainly harmounius with its surroundings, is preserving what it can, and is walkable. How can this not be considered new urbanist? | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 729 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.20.140.7 |
North Corktown is one example. Densely built on original lots sizes (very small lots). I agree though that mixed use is an important element of new urbanism. One could say that the downtown conversions from office space to residential and retail are new urbanist. Actually I know there are a few new urbanist projects in the burbs with mixed use, etc. | ||
Mw2gs Member Username: Mw2gs Post Number: 224 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 69.215.77.47 |
New Urbanism = Politically correct term for white folks wanting to regain that which they had abandoned. | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.40.171.54 |
Cherry Hill Village in Canton qualifies as New Urbanism. It is much better than anything else in Canton. I do not see any development in Detroit which fulfills the criteria. Those who have seen CHV know it is a very different and interesting concept. Maybe someday a similar development will make it in Detroit. http://www.biltmore-homes.com/ c_chv.htm | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 189 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
CHV Does not fit his criteria of rustbelt cities. | ||
Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 22 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233 |
Well, it is part of the metro Detroit region ... but I was looking for something like CHV in the city of Detroit, which to my knowledge does not exist (perhaps for the better?) | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4329 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.236.229.212 |
There's no "new urbanism" in Detroit, period. But calling out Detroit as "rust belt" could run some risks on this Forum, full of Detroit lovers. Detroit renewal today looks like 1950s suburbanization, with automobile concerns first, parking to the street, and walking and biking, public transit, way down the list. Strip malls are what Detroit is still building. "New urbanism" is when bldgs. are built to the street lot line, parking in the back. Multi-use, retail downstairs, housing upstairs in 3 storey-bldgs. It looks like Detroit of the 1920s. Block upon block of this kind of retail and housing upstairs. Chicago's Northside is full of this model of renewal. Density is built near "L" lines. Buildings hug the streets and the corners like the 1920s. Parking is behind. jjaba. | ||
Thursdaynext Member Username: Thursdaynext Post Number: 328 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 70.236.200.44 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N ew_urbanism | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4423 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.18 |
You're making quite an indictment on Detroit development, Jjaba. While a alot (a clear majority) of it isn't New Urbanist in nature, there are key projects that stick out such as the new North Corktown single family homes, The Ellington, Centurion Place, along with quite a few others you conveniently gloss over. | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 59 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 129.9.163.233 |
Jjaba right. New Urbanism = Good Ideas but bad nostalgic looking architecture. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1979 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 134.215.223.211 |
Pmardo, Detroit doesn't have any true "New Urbanist" projects. That's because Detroit still has the building blocks and infrastructure from Real Urbanism left in many of its neighborhoods. You can find lots of examples of rehabed, mixed use buildings and neighborhoods in Detroit that are undergoing significant reinvestment. Some neighborhoods that might be "sexy" enough for a project on New Urbanism would be Brush Park, downtown, Midtown, Corktown and Mexicantown/West Vernor. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4986 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
The Jeffries Projects are long gone to be developed into a gentrified "New Urbanism, "Nouveau Riche" style single family homes called Woodbridge Estates. As the Ghettoman watch the po'folks make a urban lifestyle home called "Garbage Gardens." | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 1209 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.14.251.28 |
Basically, Detroit rejected New (or Old) Urbanism beginning in the '20s, when single-family housing developments became predominant with builders in the city (see Rosedale Park, East English Village, etc.) and everything began to be oriented toward the automobile. | ||
Gianni Member Username: Gianni Post Number: 242 Registered: 05-2004 Posted From: 69.3.251.25 |
Old new urbanism = Lafayette Park. PS: This weekend the "experiment" as some here insist on calling it, is having a 50th Birthday party. All are welcome: http://www.neighborhoodlink.co m/pdf/nhextra/178452061/586995 858/748803429.pdf | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1775 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
Stecks, would you be happier if New Urbanist developments featured more vinyl siding? I'm not sure what you meant by "nostalgic". Care to explain? | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 60 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 129.9.163.106 |
Danindc: I hate vinyl siding. The New Urbanist desire to build a walkable community like in the good old days is a nostalgic sentiment, which based upon seeing some proposed and completed projects I've seen, gets translated architecturally into a re-hashing of older architectural styles. Building a block of Victorian looking town houses in the 21st century is ridiculous. Go to newurbanist.com and you'll see that almost every building plan calls for structures that predominantly appear to be 19th/early 20th century in both character and design. Why is this? The New Urbanist principles, desires, and hopes I don't have a problem with, its their choice of architecture that sucks. I would prefer to see some architecture and building choices that exemplify and define the age we are currently living in rather then one that occurred a hundred years ago. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1776 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10 |
If you read anything on New Urbanism (Andres Duany's "Suburban Nation" is a good start), you'll quickly learn that the motivation is more economical than nostalgic. The fact that walkable neighborhoods command enormous real estate premiums over their automobile-oriented counterparts certainly isn't due purely to some outdated sentimental notion. "Sustainability" is the operative term here. When building new structures in a dense, urban environment, it's important to consider the context of what already exists. So, some design elements may intentionally play off existing architecture. I can't say, however, that I've seen Victorian architecture in a new building, though. That's not to say everything has to resemble what has already been built. I've seen some rowhouses in DC that are very modernist, with clean, rectangular lines, abutting Victorian houses that are 125 years older. It all depends.... The one thing to keep in mind, though, that unlike Suburbia, the parts of an urban environment are meant to work together, so you can't just plop any old thing down in the middle of a lot. In this sense, streetscape supersedes the building itself. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 587 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 4.229.60.41 |
Pmardo, you really have to define what kind of new urbanism you are looking to study. Are you using this term as a synonym for infill development, or are you looking to examine development that seeks to adhere to the principals promoted by the CNU charter? If you're looking for the latter, you will not find any such projects within the city limits. While plenty of decent infill has been completed, none of it has taken place in the context of promoting pedestrian scale, or planning for neighborhood or district-wide mixed-uses. A perfect opportunity to establish an inner-city example of a large scale new urbanist development was lost when Jefferson Village followed the standard strip mall/residential subdivision route. | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 61 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 129.9.163.233 |
One of the New Urbanist guru's was hear not too long ago. I foget his name. He was a keynote speaker at a meeting regarding the developement of the east riverfront. I think there is a prior thread about that meeting? | ||
Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 23 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233 |
Stecks - was it UM professor Chris Leinberger? I think one reason that full-fledged new urbanist developments are not to be found within the city is that they generally occur on greenfield sites, since it is easier for developers to build new planned communities away from the time and money delays of Detroit's building permits, zoning restrictions, etc. Thanks for the help everyone, infill will have to do for now. | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 62 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 129.9.163.106 |
Danindc: I am very aware that there are numerous benefits, including economic, to pursuing New Urbanist strategies, but once again, the predominant architecture they promote is in the Federal, Victorian, Classical, and Italianate style. There may be a few contemporary style New Urbanist developments but they pale in comparison to what is actually getting built. Instead were getting small Disneyland communities. I love urban environments because they are a patchwork of architectural styles and periods that tell us something about a cities growth and history. In downtown Detroit there is Art Deco buildings adjacent to modernist. This is not a problem. It represents progress and change. Proposing a community of Italianate Loft buildings just because there may be a handful in the neighborhood is looking backward architecturally. Lets preserve the historic structures we have and move on to something more progressive. (Message edited by stecks77 on September 14, 2006) | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 63 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 129.9.163.106 |
Kwame's down with New Urbanism at the site of Tiger Stadium. I think its going to be called Disneyland Corktown http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060820/BUS INESS04/608200561 Pmardo: below is the link back to the announcement about a ULI symposium occuring back on June 6th. The New Urbanist keynote speaker was John Norquist, CEO of the Congress for New Urbanism and former mayor of Milwaukee. http://www.modeldmedia.com/dev elopmentnews/uli48.aspx | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 65 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 129.9.163.106 |
(Quote) "New Urbanism assembles much of its rhetorical and political power through nostalgic appeal to 'community' as a panacea for our social and economic as well as our urban ills." David Harvey, professor of geography at Johns Hopkins University. From an article called "New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap," published in the Harvard Design Magazine 1997 Winter/Spring issue. http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/res earch/publications/hdm/back/1h arvey.pdf http://reason.com/9901/fe.ro.densethinkers.shtml The above articles are excellent (skeptical) critiques of New Urbanism for those of you who are interested. (Message edited by stecks77 on September 14, 2006) (Message edited by stecks77 on September 14, 2006) | ||
Chris_rohn Member Username: Chris_rohn Post Number: 259 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 216.90.34.74 |
Gianni, Lafayette Park is a part of the "Urban Renewal" movement, which was all about bulldozing slums and poor areas to build interstates and high rises. (note: I like Lafayette Park, but on a whole "Urbal Renewal" was a disaster.) | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 588 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 4.229.60.41 |
Stecks, the Disneylandesque criticism of new urbanism is a tired, old and facile one. It keeps getting perpetuated by the architecture academics and private practice "starchitects" who seek to promote a lofty view of their profession as one practiced only by creative geniuses whose every product should be considered as a unique masterpiece of beauty and wonder. The criticism is also perpetuated by the sprawl apologists and protectors of property rights like the Reason Foundation folks who believe that a property owner should have virtually unrestrained rights to do whatever he/she wants with his/her sacred property. In reality, new urbanist planners and architects focus primarily on the physical form of a development rather than the architectural style. Yes, vernacular and traditional styles often lend themselves to successful new urbanist projects, but these styles are not necessary elements of every project. New urbanists are not so self important as to disqualify historical architectural styles so as to favor the "artistry" of something newly created. | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 70 Registered: 08-2006 Posted From: 69.242.214.7 |
I knew the Disney comment would drive someone crazy. They should have never built Celebration. Okay, so New Urbanist developements don't include Mickey Mouse walking around but I don't think its a far flung criticisim. When you drive and walk through some of them its creepy. It feels slightly like your walking through the Vegas version of Paris. You wonder if its a complete simulation. You don't think New Urbanists regard themselves as being self important? Andrés Duany walked down to the Gulf Coast post Katrina like his ideas where going to save the community and the architectural history of the area and once the governor and other politicians stopped drinking the koolaid they booted their asses out because they were difficult to work with and unable to compromise on any of their lofty ideals, design elements, and overall costs. People who lost there homes coudn't even afford the units the New Urbanists were proposing to blanket the area with. So much for considering the economic benefits of the project if no one who actually lives there can buy them. They may not have a high degree of self importance but they sure do consider there ideas to be the almighty truth and only truth. See the following article "Battle for Biloxi" in the New York Times Magazine for more information. From the article (quote) "Most of the New Urbanists I talked to seemed vexed by the very idea that anyone could disagree with a creed they found self-evident" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05 /21/magazine/21biloxi.html?pag ewanted=1&ei=5070&en=80e143872 470897e&ex=1158379200 Also, you cannot explain to me that a developer and planner only focus primarily on the "physical form" of a development rather then the architectural styles? If so, then why do some new Urbanists sell building plans on their website? (Message edited by stecks77 on September 14, 2006) (Message edited by stecks77 on September 14, 2006) | ||
Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 24 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.40.195.233 |
For an even more problematic portrait of Andres Duany (well, actually an article he wrote himself for the American Enterprise Online), see this link: Three Cheers for Gentrification, by Andres Duany http://www.taemag.com/issues/a rticleid.15591/article_detail. asp | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1778 Registered: 10-2003 |
I didn't realize lofty ideals were such a bad thing in design. Maybe we as a society have just grown accustomed to having crappy buildings? Current American architecture, by and large, is shit. | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 71 Registered: 08-2006 |
(quote) "Current American architecture, by and large, is shit." That's funny. No Danindc, that's the architecture the New Urbanists are pushing. Also, lofty ideals are great for design but some developers and architects think they "know" what the client needs and is in their best interest. Society hasn't grown accustomed to crappy buildings, they just don't demand better ones. (Message edited by stecks77 on September 15, 2006) (Message edited by stecks77 on September 15, 2006) | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 1779 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, I'll agree to the point that two of the developments on the CNU website: Pentagon Row and Market Square (both in Arlington, VA) aren't terribly well designed, and the materials suck. Both are a bit pretentious in their approach--but at least they got the form correct. Kentlands, on the other hand, is actually very well done. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 730 Registered: 03-2006 |
English Village is a good example of New Urbanism in Detroit. 105 brownstone condominiums with 2-story raised finished basements (three stories of living space). They are being built in clusters of four with minimal setbacks and attached garages facing the alley (the standard in the surrounding neighborhood). The St. Charles Catholic School is also being converted into lofts. http://www.englishvillagedetro it.com/ | ||
Pmardo Member Username: Pmardo Post Number: 25 Registered: 03-2006 |
Eastsidedog: Are any of the buildings already completed or is it all under construction still? pmardo | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1997 Registered: 10-2003 |
There's a lot that's been constructed and a lot to still go up. One thing that it lacks is retail. The developers do not plan on building any retail. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that there aren't too many roof tops in that neighborhood. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 590 Registered: 11-2003 |
Eastside, the English Village development is an excellent infill project. It seems to have quality materials, it has a handsome traditional Georgian revival design and it is not gated off from the neighborhood. However, it is not a new urbanist project. It is simply a single use residential infill project. New urbanist projects are mixed use and need to be large enough to have a mixed use neighborhood center. |
