  Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2332 Registered: 02-2005 |
...is a huge waterfront park from Lenox to the Grosse Pointe Park border at the base of Windmill Pointe. With all the talk about the city selling assets (i.e. Rackham, Rouge Park...) why hasn't this piece of waterfront been talked about? This park is HUGE and is basically just a field and a fishing hole. Nearby, at the end of Conner, is a large waterfront playfield. I'm not saying the city should sell ALL of this nice public waterfront, but how much money could they make by selling even half of it? It is in a fairly stable neighborhood, and a high-rise would have an amazing view of the lake, river, skyline, and all of the east side. Just brainstorming... link for non-eastsiders: http://local.live.com/default. aspx?v=2&cp=42.359218~-82.9388 27&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir =0&alt=-1000&scene=5643658 | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 691 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mackinaw, I find so many things that you say I agree with... which can't help your reputation on this board.... but the idea of taking away river front park areas from east side Detroiters is a terrible one. There is huge value to living on the east side. The river and its access to the lake are two prominent reasons! More importantly, the city should be thinking about how to improve this park to further increase the influx of families and money into a once prominent, and then derelict, and now upcoming area. Public spaces that uplift the soul uplift the public. | ||
Scs100 Member Username: Scs100 Post Number: 296 Registered: 12-2006 |
Unlike the southern/western portion of the river, this eastern part does have green space. Don't forget that downriver is all industrial. Zug Island, Port of Detroit, etc. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2333 Registered: 02-2005 |
Mafia, I look at it this way: the city has a tough time with upkeep of its large existing parks system, it needs money, and there are plenty of large parks nearby. I would prefer quality over quantity. If the city can get a pretty penny for part/all of this park, and a quality development goes in, we are hardly any worse off, especially considering that, for people in that neighborhood, another waterfront park is a few blocks away. An illustration of the importance of quality over quantity is the Gabriel Richard Park at the Belle Isle bridge. It has hardly been used...pretty much it has just taken up space and provided a nice view of the water from Jefferson. Well, now it is being upgraded and factored into the riverwalk, and will serve a purpose. If the city develops part of Ford park, but improves a smaller portion of it, we'd be better off. You don't tarnish anyone's reputation, btw. | ||
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge Post Number: 88 Registered: 08-2006 |
quote: Why? Because it's the one reason why this neighborhood is still alive and well. Ever drive around or walk around this area? People love to live there. Taking the park away--even part of it--would be a real shame. Just look at the satellite photograph you provided: it's one of Detroit's dozen or so neighborhoods with few or no vacant lots and a dense and lively grid. Taking the park away would decrease the desirability ten-fold. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 695 Registered: 10-2003 |
Mackinaw, I understand your concern about upkeep from the city... their record stinks. That said, with Jefferson Village and the other East Side development going on, I would still agree with GsGeorge, that the park and waterfront access is an asset that, if properly used, will bring in more tax paying ownership to the East Side.... without it, you significantly reduce the value of the area. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2335 Registered: 02-2005 |
It's a respectable difference in opinion. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 270 Registered: 10-2006 |
There certainly is a bunch of parks in that area as it appears from the air. Selling that park looks doable. My main question is, would the city get what it deserves for that location; after all, there are already a lot of riverfront high-reses up that way. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2336 Registered: 02-2005 |
I think the longer they wait the more money they can get. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2003 |
Perhaps the answer for some of these parks Detroit can't afford right now is a mix between what both sides of this thread are suggesting. IE Campus Martius. Isn't Campus Martius a private enterprise, that basically serves as a public space for the citizens? Honestly I don't know how this works, but perhaps its a matter of zoning to make sure development works a certain way? | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 46 Registered: 08-2006 |
South East Michigan needs all the public waterfront space it can get I dont think any of it should be sold off even though it is tempting for the money. For all the water frontage in this region sometimes it is hard to find a park along it.... | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 47 Registered: 08-2006 |
What is that building on the property by the river and across from the old trailer park site? That area could be developed as a nice waterfront park maybe even a good east end anchor for a longer river walk wouldnt that be nice. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2338 Registered: 02-2005 |
Campus Martius is a pocket park, really just a public square, in the central business district, and most of Detroit's other parks are much different. I would support semi-privatization if it could happen, Johnlodge, but I think it would be hard to do for a larger park. The exception being if a bunch of real estate owners especially in areas with lots of apartments/subdivisions on the waterfront band together to give their tenants something that enhances land value...much the same as so many downtown land owners wanted Campus Martius. | ||
Michmeister Member Username: Michmeister Post Number: 59 Registered: 10-2006 |
Whatever they could get would be like a cow peeing on a hot rock, a nice windfall but gone without a trace a short time later.As I said in an earlier thread about the Palmer Park Fountain, you can only sell it once and when it`s gone-it`s gone! Wham bam, thank you ma`m! | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 699 Registered: 10-2003 |
Great line Michmeister, and a good point. Its not dissimilar to when Kwame first came into office and said that he was going to help address the budget by selling all that "stuff" we had hanging around the DIA. As the story I heard goes, he was pulled aside and made aware that the "stuff" wasn't his to sell. We have assets in this city that, if sold, diminish the value of the city. If you look at GP, you have two assets there that have historically made it attractive. The schools (now fighting to maintain their high level of education as the state sucks the tax dollars away from them) and the parks. We could (theoretically) sell those parks for a quick windfall... and then watch the value of GP plummet. Take the assets that we have on the East Side and build on them to make the entire area more attractive. |
