Jump to content

Allan

Detroit Photo of the Day

Recommended Posts


Nice!  Crazy how something like that can be moved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They used a rail system to move it a few hundred feet down Woodward. I'm not sure about how it looked before on the inside.

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thursday, April 7, 2005

The much-debated Woodward Place at Brush Park is replacing the empty lots in Brush Park near the city center.

IMG_8392.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically that style of buildings doesn't belong in that location. They are very suburban in design instead of being urban and fitting in with their surroundings. Remember, this is at Woodward and I-75!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's infill, but in the wrong place. I wouldn't mind if it was deeper in the neighborhood more, but putting them on Woodward was a ridiculous idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We keep talking about things looking suburban. Are we confusing that with the word "new". Are there designs that don't look out of place when standing next to blight?

Most of Detroit looks exactly the same, since it was built at the exact same time. Just seems like we've demonized the word suburban to the point where anything that looks good in Troy must be bad for Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have no issues with what it looks like. In fact, I think it looks urban. The development is lowrise townhouse residential units, which don't belong in this area. It's three blocks away from a 34 story building!! I thought zoning ordinances would have prohibited such a project, but of course, Detroit is desperate.

Edited by wolverine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have no issues with what it looks like.  In fact, I think it looks urban.  The development is lowrise townhouse residential units, which don't belong in this area.  It's three blocks away from a 34 story building!!  I thought zoning ordinances would have prohibited such a project, but of course, Detroit is desperate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 1880 mansions were also blocks away from a 34 story building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with townhouses being there and think this is really the way to go. Owners get a garage (you'll understand the importance when you're older), but it's in the back making for a nice front and their height is perfect at 3-4 stories. I just don't like the design. Look at the lofts Crosswinds are doing in New Center, or any of the newer development in New Center for that matter. Yeah, the maybe a little plain in design, that can be improved on, but this is more of what I would have expected for style. Another thing, is that there is really a separation going on along Woodward, move it closer to street level. I know it might be a bummer for someone living in those, but look at where you're living. They should take a pointer from the styling of the Brownstones on John R. Simply beautiful all around. Then again, I don't know squat about ubran planning or architecture! (really, I don't)

I've toured all three of the designs and they are really nice on the inside. Crosswinds took a gamble and it is really paying off for them. I think what they are doing is great, especially their renovations, but this one falls a little short in my book. They are planning on building another building on the site of their trailer when the complex is completed that will be more of the box type tower which is what I would expect. There is an apartment building in the middle of all the property that they don't own and I think the new will compare to it. You might think it looks out of place, but not really, in fact I think it helps.

Edited by ebaldy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought zoning ordinances would have prohibited such a project, but of course, Detroit is desperate.

Of course I am not too familiar with the area, but it seems to me to be just another example of planning taking the backseat to development. I don't understand why one single developer was allowed to monopolize a huge amount of prime space with cookie-cutter designs - the aurora of Brush Park is far classier than what they've put up.

The only advantage I see is that it will temporarily bring some residents back to the city center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1880 mansions were also blocks away from a 34 story building.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know, but on Woodward? It just seems like these new homes should have been set back aways from the road to allow for larger commerical and residential buildings to be built along this stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is poor planning but the project has to be put in the context of the time it was built. Remember this project which was supposed to start in 1997 was pretty revolutionary at the time, this was the first of the major residental projects downtown. So not surprisingly conisdering the "risk" they weren't very innovative. Compare that the The Ellington the first truly urban new contruction which I think is setting the trend towards more urban design. Even Crosswinds getting the right idea now check out the design for the Garden Lofts in Hamilton Anderson's projects section

http://www.hamilton-anderson.com

Edited by detroitfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there are lights on, that doesn't mean that the building is open. See the David Whitney Building & the American Hotel for examples. I have not seen this shop open in almost a month now, unless I am just downtown at the wrong times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there are lights on, that doesn't mean that the building is open.  See the David Whitney Building & the American Hotel for examples.  I have not seen this shop open in almost a month now, unless I am just downtown at the wrong times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, Allan, it's not your timing. This store has NOT been open since I've have been down here, and that is over a year and a half! I have a splendid view of that store from my window here. The "Going Out of Business" sign needs to go....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because there are lights on, that doesn't mean that the building is open.  See the David Whitney Building & the American Hotel for examples.  I have not seen this shop open in almost a month now, unless I am just downtown at the wrong times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This store is open. I saw people coming out today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

It doesn't look like many people will be using this phone outside of the Park Avenue Building, at W. Adams & Park.

04_12_05_IMG_9246.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is owned by a slumlord. We live in a country with a capitalist economy, so there's not much you can do about it. Chances are nothing will happen with the place until land values in the area rise more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.