  Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 749 Registered: 02-2006 |
Could this work in Detroit? Would it be welcome? Where could it go? http://www.steelyardcommons.co m/main.asp video | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2166 Registered: 10-2003 |
What a horrible idea, on so many levels. Disclosure: I was actually banned from another forum for suggesting that it would have been better to build/rebuild in existing neighborhoods than to construct this oversized suburban turd. | ||
L_b_patterson Member Username: L_b_patterson Post Number: 316 Registered: 10-2003 |
Actually Dan, you were suspended for one day. Don't be such a drama queen. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2167 Registered: 10-2003 |
Okay, so I was suspended for one day. It's still a turd. | ||
Spitty Member Username: Spitty Post Number: 532 Registered: 07-2004 |
That would work perfectly in northern Allen Park. Maybe between Southfield Fwy/I-94 and Oakwood/Outer Drive on the site of the old landfill. Oh, nevermind, they're already building one there.  http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0507/28/C01-261989.htm | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 750 Registered: 02-2006 |
But would it, should it, could it, work IN Detroit. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2168 Registered: 10-2003 |
What do you mean by "work"? | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 751 Registered: 02-2006 |
Would it be successful. Would people want it. The concept of taking an old industrial area in Detroit and doing some thing like this. | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 278 Registered: 04-2004 |
I'm confused. The main image on their website of this Steelyard Commons thing shows a bustling "community-like" development, yet from the air it's just a bunch of big box stores placed next to each other with acres of parking. Thnk2mch. Why? What is so special about this? | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 752 Registered: 02-2006 |
Nothing special, other than it being located in an old industrial area near downtown. I know what I think about it. I am just wondering if "Detroit" would like it. | ||
Wolverine Member Username: Wolverine Post Number: 279 Registered: 04-2004 |
Uh, well I think we could be a bit more innovative than the Steelyard Commons. But yes, big box retail would work in Detroit. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2169 Registered: 10-2003 |
You can drive a car with your feet if you want to--that doesn't make it a good idea. | ||
Stecks77 Member Username: Stecks77 Post Number: 273 Registered: 08-2006 |
You can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig. If this was actually using old steel mill buildings rather then fragments it would be a little more interesting but its the same oversized development that gets thrown up everywhere else. Of course this would be welcomed. Any economic developement is desperately needed in Detroit. There is plenty of room, but personally I can't stand the big box store lifestyle and this just looks awful. (Message edited by stecks77 on February 21, 2007) | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 312 Registered: 07-2006 |
It's moderately better than your stock carbon copy big box buildings that you find in nearly every suburb in America. I would hope we can do better here, and perhaps actually reuse buildings rather than doing cheap half-assed 21st century ripoffs of early 20th century buildings. But... I'll take cheap ripoffs over a decaying wasteland any day. | ||
The_nerd Member Username: The_nerd Post Number: 396 Registered: 12-2003 |
Well the site was very difficult and I really doubt that ANY neiborhood development wanted the site. The area formerly housed a steel mill and while it is bordered by the trendy (and gentrifying) neighborhood of Tremont to the north, the particular plot was unsuitible for home. Due east of SteelYard Commons ("SC") is a currently operating large steel mill. Due west is the interchange of I-71 and I-490 along with the Jennings freeway. Past that is the wall created by MetroHealth Medical center. Due south of the development is an area lined with old factories and I believe ALCOA has a plant south of there also. To make matters worse the site is located in the industrial valley and the only way to access the area is by steeply graded access roads (especially steep on the north and west). Personally I believe the city did the best they could with that site and perhaps it will help improve/save neighborhoods like Tremont and the near west side. BTW, the only thing open at SC is Home Depot. Target and Wal-Mart will open later this year. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2170 Registered: 10-2003 |
The_nerd, you write as if it were imperative to build something on that site. There are many other better-suited locations for retail in the city, say Public Square, Euclid Avenue, and the empty lots in the Warehouse District. The City of Cleveland dropped the ball on this one big time. | ||
The_nerd Member Username: The_nerd Post Number: 397 Registered: 12-2003 |
^ Those areas you mentioned are ideal for "higher end" retail, but not big box stores (unless you're advocating the demolition of Terminal Tower). The city wanted big box stores because it would rather residents spend money within city limits instead of going to Cleveland Heights, Garfield Heights, North Olmstead... Furthermore, let be honest there wasn't a market for that particular plot, considering the contraction of manufacturing in Great Lakes states. If anything the area would have remained largely abandoned, fueling crime, instead of now fueling some (though no way optimal) economic growth. | ||
The_nerd Member Username: The_nerd Post Number: 398 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: Euclid is already building the "Euclid Corridor" project that will have BRT and hopefully infill the smaller lot. As for the Warehouse District (1) the District is booming with bars, restaurants and lofts. (2) The only "open lots" in the warehouse district are a few surface lots. I think you implied the flats area, but that too is also under redevelopment. The highend Stonebrige project is building new condos and units left and right, furthermore Wolstein has proposed a large dense use development for the east flats. Why would they build big box in those locations when they could pick an industrial wasteland with freeway access that could lure suburbinites? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 152 Registered: 10-2003 |
What I do like about this, is that it goes along with something I've been saying for awhile here on the forum. If these huge mega-chains made their buildings (or used existing buildings) which reflected the area in which they are located, they would be less boring than putting up the same identical structure on every single intersection, and would stop this process of homogenizing the hell out of our country. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2171 Registered: 10-2003 |
Wrong. Public Square/Euclid Avenue is currently an area of virtually NO retail. What you are proposing is keeping buildings vacant in the hopes that one day, Neiman Marcus and Barneys open shop. Ain't gonna happen. Why build oversized retail on one of the most inaccessible parcels in the city, when you could easily take advantage of the transit hub downtown? The city allowed big boxes because it is desperately making a misguided attempt to replicate its suburbs, based on what the city perceives as "successful" development. Mitchell Schneider was out to make a quick buck--taxpayer-subsidized, of course. Well, that, and he doesn't know how to build anything other than formulaic suburban bullshit. In Ohio, there is no difference whether someone spends their money within the city or not. That person pays income taxes where he/she lives, and sales tax is levied countywide. The only difference, really, is property taxes, which are offset somewhat by the millions in subsidies that went toward this steaming pile. In the end, Steelyard screams "regressive". The people of Cleveland deserve *real* neighborhoods with *real* retail options--preferably where the profits are re-invested in the neighborhood, and not in Northwest Arkansas, Minneapolis, or Atlanta. This strip mall is just plain insulting. | ||
Burnsie Member Username: Burnsie Post Number: 862 Registered: 11-2003 |
There's a proposal to redevelop Bethlehem Steel's Bethlehem, PA works with a casino that may or may not be historically-preservation minded. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 652 Registered: 08-2006 |
They tried something similar here. It was called Trapper's Alley. | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 830 Registered: 08-2006 |
I like the project. Milwaukee has done the same thing a number of times. The old Allis chalmers campus was saved and converted to a mall. It has helped out the area and has attracted more and more business since it was built. http://www.findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_qn4196/is_20051107 /ai_n15773092 | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 850 Registered: 02-2006 |
Unfortunately, you can't have transit-oriented development without transit. The North/Clybourn area in Chicago is overflowing with big box stores galore. What's the difference? There's very little parking, and almost NO surface lots. However, there are garages, 3 El stations within 4 blocks of the strip, and frequent bus service. Would it have been built like that if lots of land was available and there was no transit? Not a chance. | ||
Detroitbill Member Username: Detroitbill Post Number: 157 Registered: 09-2006 |
This is by no means an overly attractive development but I do give Cleveland credit for getting it done in their city, A development like this (albeit uninspiring) would be most welcome in many desolate areas near downtown, It draws people, keeps them shopping where they live and also gives many a reason to stay when they may have considered leaving. Look at the positive reaction a new CVS store on Michigan down from Corktown is receiving. A larger project such as this would be very well received. The maintenance and upkeep of a project like this over the long term is just as important as its being built. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 28 Registered: 10-2006 |
The Clybourn Corridor has very little parking? That's news to me. I don't think there's a single store without it's own free parking lot/garage. It's certainly better than Hall Road, but it's still overwhelmingly car-oriented. The only truly urban corridor of big box stores in the U.S. would be along Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, especially the part from 14th to 23rd streets. There's no parking for any of those stores. The point is that if Chicago can't do pedestrian/transit oriented big box retailing, then Cleveland and Detroit have no chance. Therefore I would say this Cleveland project is a decent project and would be a reasonable model for Detroit retailing. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 851 Registered: 02-2006 |
Very little parking compared to demand, sorry I left myself open to nitpicking. 6-story garages are different than acres of surface lots, did you look at the Cleveland site proposal? It's no different than anything out in the suburbs...a power center with outlots. It just happens to be in the city. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2172 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I have a question. If cities build strip malls and shopping centers identical to those in their suburbs, what competitive advantage do the cities retain, if any? Would this not lessen the appeal of the city, since both the stores and environment are identical to that which is already readily available in the suburbs? | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 832 Registered: 08-2006 |
"It just happens to be in the city" Never a bad thing to have more business in the city. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2173 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: True. But why waste so much land? And why allow the cheap buildings? Wouldn't it make more sense to reuse vacant property in the downtown--or in neighborhoods? There's nothing that necessitated suburban principles here, other than the city's flawed zoning regulations, and the owner's ineptitude/cheapness. | ||
The_nerd Member Username: The_nerd Post Number: 399 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dan, I'm hoping for full economic realizaiton in all cities and I certainly hope to see redevelopment. One project need not be sacrificed for another and the city of Cleveland is and will continue to make improvements along the Euclid Corridor. That being said, you seem to suggest that SC came at the sacrifice of downtown/Euclid retail. That, Sir is simply a fallacy. In a city like Cleveland, retailers attracted to the SC site (large open area) will not move to a more centralized area (downtown) where land and building costs are significantly higher (unless you're suggesting leveling the urban core for big box retail). Likewise, traditional urban retailers won't be attracted to SC because it is literally a pit. You seemingly gloss over the fact that Cleveland developed a mall, anchored by Dillards, three rapid transit lines, a large office complex, a hotel, movie theater and walkways to Gund Areana (all with globs of parking and free parking with purchase). What happened? Tower City is slowly dying. What has replaced the Tower City model is smaller Entertainment distrits such as the one along E. 4th and Euclid (anchored by the House of Blues). You're right, Clevelanders do deserve retail, but the vast majority are poor and can't/didn't support the type of retail you suggest. Thus the decent "good retail" left in the city is on a small, but increasing scale as more middle income and higher units are built withing the city. Should we neglect the desires of a large portion of city residents who shop and work at big box retail because it doesn't fit within our grand scheme of things? What I find insulting is you assertion that you'd rather allow an abandoned industrial wasteland to continue contributing to urban problems and pollution than to redevelop it into something that many Clevelanders want. Do you really want city services to continue to care for abandoned land or would you rather have tax abatements used as a loss leader and recoup a limited income tax increase with a slight boost to surrounding property values? | ||
L_b_patterson Member Username: L_b_patterson Post Number: 317 Registered: 10-2003 |
Don't specific retailers look exclusively for easy "in/out" arrangements when placing their stores? A Home depot on W 9th would certainly not qualify as easy "in/out". And I don't see CC forcing Home Depot to build on W. 9th. (add in land costs, shipping docks - can lumber shipments come in on the RTA?, etc.) The logistics would be mind baffling and the costs prohibitive in a more built environment like the Warehouse District as opposed to the Industrial Valley. True, Cleveland needs more retail downtown. Home Depot won't be building there anytime soon now. So Cleveland takes the best option (or in DaninDcs the regressive option) in having it built in a highly undesirable neighborhood. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2174 Registered: 10-2003 |
The_nerd, your post would be entirely valid if big box retailers did not build urban stores. Target, Best Buy, and Home Depot, among the anchor tenants, all have urban stores in other cities. Why not Cleveland? Because the city SETTLED. I would rather the site of an old steel mill remain vacant than the center of the downtown. As it is, the city will reach a level of retail saturation (1 million sf is a LOT of retail), making it that much more difficult to redevelop neighborhood retail outlets. Good urban design isn't just for the wealthy. Your implication otherwise is simply wrong. | ||
Blort Member Username: Blort Post Number: 17 Registered: 02-2007 |
Of course it wouldn't work. Detroit foolishly demolishes their old buildings before anything can be done. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2175 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Certainly easier than in SoHo, I imagine. I'm tired of Cleveland (and Detroit) looking for excuses why things CAN'T be done a certain way., and always seeking lowest common denominator quick fixes to problems. So much for the can-do blue-collar attitude. | ||
The_nerd Member Username: The_nerd Post Number: 400 Registered: 12-2003 |
1. You gloss over economic reality. Other cities have urban big box because despite high costs, demand was so high to warrant building in the urban core. Not only does Cleveland and other cities have, have cheaper land options, but demand (just look at the ecnomic demographics) in the core isn't high enough for companies to risk building a high cost store that has a high potential of failure. 2. Like I have CONSTANTLY said, the retailers at SC didn't have an either or option. The option was "here or the suburbs." If the city suggested building downtown I can assure you the developers/retailers would have laughed out of the room. Like I said BEFORE, the city tried something similar to YOUR SUGGESTION and it FAILED. Dan, how would you overcome higher land costs and parking (since despite recent increases there still isn't a critical mass of downtown residents)? What about higher building costs? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2176 Registered: 10-2003 |
Tower City is not the same thing as Stealyard. Tower City declined because (drum roll) it had the same shit you can already find in the suburbs. The mall is hopelessly disconnected from the rest of the city. Now, you want to talk about economic reality? Let's talk parking requirements, and the cost of all that wonderful parking at Steelyard Commons. Was all that asphalt free? Does the owner not have to pay taxes on that land? You're claiming that building urban stores in the city (I know--I demand a lot, don't I?) is too expensive, BUT YOU HAVEN'T RUN ANY NUMBERS, HAVE YOU? And you're trying to say that demand would be significantly different between the Stealyard Commons site and downtown, even though we're talking about a REGIONAL shopping center, and two areas that are roughly a MILE apart? WTF? At least poor folks (who you claim this project will serve) can get downtown by taking a variety of buses and trains. Stealyard is going to have one lousy and infrequent bus connection to the rest of the system. | ||
The_nerd Member Username: The_nerd Post Number: 401 Registered: 12-2003 |
1. Yes, we all know that Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot are all unique stores that you cannot find in the suburbs and are in no-way analogous to mall retail. 2. Steel Yard is much more than a mile away from Downtown Cleveland http://www.steelyardcommons.co m/pdf/Steelyard%20Commons%20ae rial_north.pdf Even if it were just a mile, then you have to admit that downtown and an industrial wasteland are suffiently different that they do not work on the same economic considerations. As Borat would say one is filled with offices, restaurants, stadia, hotels, transit links and the other "not so much" 3. Poor folks also drive, and lets be honest someone coming from Home Depot with a sheet of plywood is not going to find it any easier to take two versus three or four transit links. 4. Do you really believe that a big box retailer would build in downtown Cleveland WITHOUT tax abatemetns? All one needs to do is look at the cost of building a multi-story downtown store, with attached parking garage versus building a cheap box in a brownfield. The land acquisition costs for brownfields are virtually nothing because the sites are so contaminated that any owner gladly unloads them. On the otherhand, downtown sites must often be wrangled piecemeal from owners, who are often speculators. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 2177 Registered: 10-2003 |
^In turn: 1. Huh? 2. Your comment would seem to indicate a greater existing customer base in the downtown (140,000 workers in the CBD have money to spend). 3. Not all poor folks have cars. Some folks even choose not to have them. Home Depot delivers. The thought of someone taking a sheet of plywood on a bus is no excuse for 1 million SF of shitty design. 4. Tax abatements? How do those compare to: -environmental site remediation -new highway interchange -construction of infrastructure: streets, sewers, plumbing, electrical Those are all kinda pricey things. As it is, there are still huge tax abatements for Steelyard Commons. If you're gonna spend public money, spend it on something that doesn't look like complete shit. | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 834 Registered: 08-2006 |
"But why waste so much land?" There seems to be a lot of of vacant land in Detroit and even in Cleveland. I would rather there be a shopping center than an overgrown field. "Wouldn't it make more sense to reuse vacant property in the downtown--or in neighborhoods?" Definately, I'm an nothing but an advocate of fixing up what is already there. But to attract big box, big tax revenue businesses to the city, you'll need more land. The city can use the tax revenue from the successful but boring strip mall to renovate old storefronts and try and attract businesses. I would prefer this abandoned area be turned into a mall rather than it staying vacant. I don't think the stores would move into the city without a place to go like this. Although I disagree with the city "dropping the ball". I do think that downtown Cleveland should attract big boxes downtown. Milwaukee has done it and they've been great downtown. Old building gets renovated and people can buy their stuff. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1001 Registered: 04-2006 |
I am not moved by steelyard either. It is however a brownfield redevlopment. Those are really had to do, demographics, access, are all not there as the areas are nearly always giant indistial sites with little population close-by. I do however think that Tower City is connected to the City. All Rapid trains run through the place and deposit folks from all over Cleveland in the mall. Dan's assessment of not having exciting stores is right on the mark though, since the closing of Higbees/Dillards, there was nothing really unique about the place from a shopper's persepctive. Well maybe the Hard Rock, but hey even Detroit has one of those! | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 852 Registered: 02-2006 |
Hard Rock...I tried to go to that one in Cleveland once, just because it was convenient...those places have lines out the doors on any halfway-normal dining night. I'm not waiting 45+ minutes for mediocre food. | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2070 Registered: 07-2004 |
Atlanta has taken the sight of a former steel mill(139 acres) and converted it into a mixed-use community called Atlantic Station. This Cleveland Steel Yard appears to be a similar attempt at converting a former brownfield area into reuseable land. The only problem with it is that there appears to be no residential. Access seems to be by car only. If that's the case then they missed a good opportunity to make this a really unique destination. | ||
Thnk2mch Member Username: Thnk2mch Post Number: 754 Registered: 02-2006 |
Atlantic Station is very similar. Built on an old 130 acre steel mill site. They use an underground parking deck for up to 7300 cars, so the "Sea of parking" is not there. And yes, Atlantic Station includes new residential. Thanks Royce. | ||
Crawford Member Username: Crawford Post Number: 30 Registered: 10-2006 |
Yes, Atlantic Station is a little more sustainable than Steelyard Commons, but it's basically just another infill New Urbanist development, with the requisite crappy pastiche and privatized spaces. Atlantic Station is more like Big Beaver Road than a traditional downtown, except with the free parking underground and marginally better walkability. I bet you 98% of the trips to Atlantic Station are by automobile, which is obviously better than the 99.9% figure for Big Beaver, but still sucks. |
