  Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 97 Registered: 10-2006 |
Currently in the Detroit CBD there is definitely more residents/residential units then there ever has been since the very early 1900s. Certainly during the large building boom of the 1920s, housing was pushed further out as these new larger block-sized office towers did not incorporate any residential units. Therefore, my main question posed is, how will having the most residents in the CBD in the last 100 years, effect the downtown? Certainly there are many positives (livelier streets, etc.), but might not there also be negatives (after all it is called the Central BUSINESS District)? | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 492 Registered: 04-2006 |
Negatives: More demand for car space may lead to the taking of other historic buildings for parking lots or multilevel garages. Congestion will increase. This may negatively impact the cost of doing certain business downtown as people love convenience and it will make it even more difficult for deliveries to be made to offices or stores. By having workers compete with residents for spots, the cost of parking may increase to astronomical levels unless supply is built to meed the level of the demand. It may be harder to get onto a machine at the Y or Millender center fitness gyms. Positives May be a stimulus to increase the use of public transit. May help attract a more diverse group of businesses and services to attend to the needs of the home owner or loft dweller (see Mezzanine thread) | ||
Docmo Member Username: Docmo Post Number: 180 Registered: 10-2005 |
Positives way outweigh the negatives. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 7422 Registered: 12-2003 |
Charlottepaul, We don't do business anything like last century, in general. IF anything, the parking that was necessary for these buildings when they were full of people should certainly be enough after the conversions. I cannot imagine that many more buildings landlocked like the Vinton...perhaps someone here has already done a survey of 'loftable' buildings, with the required parking nearby. Do you really think we'll have MORE people living down here than used to WORK in the CBD?! There are nothing but positives to creating adaptable living units that appeal to Detroit lovers, especially those who are able to work from home. It's like they are moving INTO their offices...leaving yardwork and suburban driving-to-your-fun behind. (water conservation is another plus!) That home work trend should continue, there is no reason why it won't. Plus, if this turns out anything like other cities...many of these units will be "townhomes" for entertainment and reducing commutes...while these families also maintain "countryhomes" for their cherished isolation from some of the usual city issues. | ||
Rocket_city Member Username: Rocket_city Post Number: 152 Registered: 04-2006 |
Well, a positive element to the parking thing would be to say that many of the suburbanites that come to live downtown are the kind who are advocates for mass transit. By the city capturing their "human capital", it would seem to me there would ultimately be more of a push for mass transit. Plus, the more suburbanites who move back and are protransit, are able to spread the word and even influence those still out in the burbs. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 386 Registered: 07-2004 |
To be honest I think downtown residential population is over obsessed about. You can have all the people you want living in a CBD. That does not make it more lively. Downtowns were alive with energy back 40 years ago, because people from all over the metropolitan areas came into downtown for the day or to have fun, etc. Have all the people you want living downtown. But unless metro wide residents start coming downtown again, then the things downtowns are famous for will not come back, because people are all of a sudden living in a CBD. So while it may be positive, I don't think having the most residents in the CBD since 1900 or anything is really the biggest issue to a downtown comeback. We must attract people back downtown from all areas of Metro Detroit. Downtown must be THE CITY CENTRE again, and not just a neighbourhood for downtown residents. (Message edited by miketoronto on December 06, 2006) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 493 Registered: 04-2006 |
Mike has it right, fix the neighborhoods, not just downtown and there will be a larger market to keep downtown viable. The Downtown living movement is in large a response to the decentralization of offices. Office centers are scattered around the region now. As Gannon states, there is a trend for home/work arrangements that will continue to make all existing office markets weak as the developers will always try to lure new offices to areas further out. What we are seeing here is a slow conversion of land use, from one of commerical to mixed use. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2006 |
What I think downtowns, like Detroit, need isn't so much many, many thousands of residents but a thriving commercial presence and athletic venues. The idea is to get workers working downtown til 5 and then go somewhere for a burger and beer and then to a baseball or hockey game. A classic example of this is Washington where the workforce downtown is huge and then they can eat and take a subway to Verizon Center (hockey/basketball) or RFK (and in '08 the new baseball stadium). and then take the subway home. Abe Pollin did D.C. a tremendous favor by building his arena (Verizon Center)downtown instead of out in an isolated suburb along the Capital Beltway like his former arena (it might as well been in a corn field - it was an ugly building with NO commercial enterprises nearby - classic example on a building surronded by acres of parking - all the locals got was a lot of traffic - no economic benefit). (Message edited by emu_steve on December 09, 2006) | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 781 Registered: 10-2003 |
Detroitplanner, Any new development will increase demand for parking, but the amount of parking needed for residential development is far less than the amount of parking needed for office development. For example, 4000 sqft of office space will fit 20-30 workers in a standard layout. These 20-30 office workers will need 20-30 parking spaces. 4000 sqft of residential space will fit 3 two-bedroom apartments (or condos) in a standard layout. These 3 residential units will need two parking spaces each, for a total of 6. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4860 Registered: 10-2003 |
With as much space as downtown has left to fill back in you could fill every one of the vacant high-rises left with residential space, and you'd create demand for office towers on the now empty lots. Downtown is hardly to the point of where it has to worry about pushing out office workers. lol This is why I'm excited to see many of these old office buildings go residential, it will mean new office towers, and retail and entertainment space not too far down the road. (Message edited by lmichigan on December 10, 2006) | ||
Erikd Member Username: Erikd Post Number: 782 Registered: 10-2003 |
The accusation that Detroit is ignoring the neighborhoods, and "just fixing downtown", is totally false. Over the last few years, Downtown Detroit has added a few hundred new residential units, but these downtown developments make up a very small amount of the development in the city. 90% of the new housing in Detroit is NOT built downtown. Downtown Detroit has added a decent amount of new retail over the last few years, but the amount of new retail in the neighborhoods is far greater. Over the last few years, East Jefferson (alone) has added far more new retail than all of downtown. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 394 Registered: 12-2005 |
Erikd - Your example sounds like nothing more than the creation of additional new housing units and commercial buildings in a city and region that is declining in population. When this happens inside the Detroit City Limits, it is apparently justified as "fixing the neighborhoods" and yet when it happens outside the city, it is denigrated as "sprawl". To me, "fixing the neighborhoods" should include stabilizing the decline of the remaining existing housing stocks and local businesses outside of the CBD. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 862 Registered: 03-2006 |
Erikd, good point about downtown parking. I never thought of it that way. Still parking for residential needs to be adjacent to the property (i.e. Book Cadillac) but lots of office workers downtown don't park in adjacent structures. Many walk a block or two, or cross a street or two to get to their office from their parking spot. Mikeg, if housing is built where there is existing infrastructure it is infill and if it's built where there is zero infrastructure then it is usually called "sprawl." It has nothing to do with the city-suburb issue. For example, the new high rise lofts in RO are not sprawl. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 514 Registered: 04-2006 |
ErokD, What neighborhood do you live in? How long have you lived there? Are you an owner or a renter? Owners have a vested interest in seeing that thier neighborhoods remain clean and safe. Solid neighborhoods don't need new houses, they need services. You're not noticing a significant number of homes where grass goes uncut and calls to the city go unanswered? How about corner drug deals that are done out of cars? How many of those do you see? Did you know that when you call the police to register a complaint they may not have enough time to come out and check it out, but they can tell you that (if you have a plate number) the car they are dealing drugs out of is stolen. You're not noticing a serious dumping problem of old tires or building debries? You're not noticing that the neighbors are thoughouly confused over what they can put out, which days they can put it out, and what bags they can or cannot use for trash or brush? I don't see big piles of tires or old roofs being dumped in the CBD. Even if they were, the CBD has Clean Detroit. All the neighborhoods get are poorly put together one week a year programs to participate in; and if you happen to have a busy week that week, you can't contribute. These were never problems under Coleman Young. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 395 Registered: 12-2005 |
Eastsidedog - So allowing existing residential housing stock to deteriorate to the point where they have to be leveled flat and then "infilled" is "fixing the neighborhood"? What a waste of resources! Some of you have a very flexible definition of "sprawl" . And regarding your infrastructure counterpoint - just remember that the DWSD has already provided all of the primary infrastructure southeast Michigan will need for the next thousand years. Again, another waste of resources.... | ||
Spiritofdetroit Member Username: Spiritofdetroit Post Number: 103 Registered: 11-2006 |
I agree with eastsidedog here. Mikeg, have you driven through many of the neighborhoods? The only way to fix many of them is to level them and start over with nice infill. (Message edited by SpiritofDetroit on December 10, 2006) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 127 Registered: 10-2006 |
Ok so a negative could possibly be a need for more parking. Thinking then in terms of infrastructure, wouldn't there need to be new schools for example built in the downtown for the increased number of residents? There did use to be some but you have to go back like a hundred years. You know that kids like to be able to walk to their elementary school (neighborhood school). | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 236 Registered: 12-2004 |
Schools and other infrastructure downtown would necessarily look different then the rest of the city. You could look to the area around Woodbridge estates or east of downtown to determine models for dense population needs. There are already a number of options in the area of downtown for elementary school. Burton and Friends come to mind. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 40 Registered: 11-2006 |
I really wonder about having so many residents in the CBD per se. Don't most cities have significant population NEAR but not in the CBD itself? (I do realize that cities are trying to create 'living downtowns' that don't shut down with the office workers leave but if the residents live NEAR the downtown doesn't have to shut down). What I'm getting at that in DETROIT I'd think the two 'close in' housing areas would be the river front and Brush Park. I'd think that living in the CBD is actually a secondary housing market to those bigger markets. I'm happy to see what is to happen along the river front which I think should be the fastest growing part of Detroit. |
