[skyfan]

This is very good news for Cass Park, Jeffries East is a cancer for the neighborhood. Hopefully, Cass Park will now see the revival that the rest of Midtown is having.



City-owned slum awaits wreckers

Some residents welcome plans to rebuild Jeffries project

January 12, 2007

BY MARISOL BELLO and SUZETTE HACKNEY

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

Amid Detroit's construction boom in Midtown, where new state-of-the-art lofts and condos sell for more than a quarter of a million dollars, the city's poorest live in squalid public housing infected with roaches and vermin, where open-air drug dealing is rampant and junkies stumble out of apartments that double as dope dens.

That's life in Jeffries East, but not for much longer.

The Detroit housing project is slated for the wrecking ball in March, leaving some of the 131 families who still live there wondering where they'll go next and others relieved to be escaping.

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20070112&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=701120371&Ref=AR&Show=0&template=printart

[LMich]

I'm not so sure. Perhaps they need to be torn down because of how obsolete they are, but if we think for a minute that simply taking the density out of public housing is a 'solution' I think we're going to find that's not the case. It's like the belief that dispersing crime is better than concentrated crime, or that lower-densities promote less crime. It's just not the case, and Detroit's kind of a perfect example of that. I fear that people believe simply building new suburbn-styled, low-density public housing helps to dillute the problems, and it just doesn't.

[Hayward]

^ After taking an entire class devoted to public housing, and having a couple friends who have shared their experiences with growing up in public housing projects, I'm not sure if I can agree with your point. You are right when you say dispersing these residents throughout the city won't fix the problem. But low density housing (like Woodbridge Estates) should work. Also, I would avoid using the word suburban in these instances. Detroit's current highrise public housing configurations ARE suburban in design. Or more specifically, Corbusien.

The instances where highrise public housing is succesful is extremely rare. Success can only be achieved through intense community organization by building residents, and overspending to keep the buildings running in decent condition. It's very uncommon for this to happen. And in Detroit's case, it's never going to happen.

[LMich]

I shouldn't have said suburban, because you're right, Brewster, Jeffries, and the like were set up as auto-centric complexes, or at least disconnected/segregagated/isolated from their respective neighborhoods, in this case by freeways. In fact, I'm convinced, after rethinking this, that this had a lot to do with their failure.

I'm still skeptical that reduced density means reduced per capita crime, or that it was the density of the housing that was the problem, here. New Orleans has (or had) notoriously dangerous low-density housing projects. It seems that it's not density that creates the problem, rather the concentration of the poverty stricken in one location which can be remedied by mixed-income housing. And, even the concentration of poverty-stricken families and invidiuals isn't always a recipe for crime.

The Brewster Towers probably need to be brought down because of their shoddy build (like most of the housing projects of the time), but, they failed not simply because they were towers, but poorly-maintained, shoddily-built, fully rent-restricted, suburban-layed, disconnected towers. Perhaps, a more proactive, or functional (at all), housing commission could have saved the Brewster and Jeffries. But, more likely, they'd have failed for the simple fact of the freeways.

I'm getting the feeling that we may be arguing two different things, though. With some examples, I may concede that bringing down these towers may be a slight improvement simply because of how poorly built and maintained these communities were, but I'm not sure I'm really to concede that these projects failed because they were high-rises.

[skyfan]

I have to agree that Woodbridge Estates success is due more that it's mixed income, well designed and integrated in the neighborhood, than its low density. There doesn't seem to be significant differences in low density Jeffries East or higher density Brewster Towers in terms of how bad they are. I think high rise public housing could be successful if it was mixed income, but they were such colossal failures in the past that we won't see any soon.

[Steely Dan]

It seems that it's not density that creates the problem, rather the concentration of the poverty stricken in one location which can be remedied by mixed-income housing.


yes, it the concentration of poverty and isolation from society that made many urban public housing projects fail in ameirca, not their density. they were built with good, but ill-conceived intentions, and many cities used them simply as a place to keep the urban poor out of sight and out of mind; warehouses (or perhaps prisons would be a better metaphor) for the undesirables of society. a sort of " let them (read: minorities) wallow in their own misery" attitude emerged as these places slid into a type of 3rd-world like anarchy, cut-off and left for dead. i really don't think density is the main issue, as many extrememly dense areas in cities around the country are very successful and relatively crime-free. the key is integration. integration of incomes, of races, of adjacent neighborhoods, of jobs, of commerce, of transportation, of retail, of recreation, etc.

sadly, our country doesn't seem to do integration very well. concentration and isolation of poverty is always a recipe for disaster.

[LMich]

I have to agree that Woodbridge Estates success is due more that it's mixed income, well designed and integrated in the neighborhood, than its low density. There doesn't seem to be significant differences in low density Jeffries East or higher density Brewster Towers in terms of how bad they are. I think high rise public housing could be successful if it was mixed income, but they were such colossal failures in the past that we won't see any soon.

The only problem I have is the talk of bringing down the Brewster-Douglas Towers. Since we've pretty much decided that it is not that they are towers or the density that's the problem, why can't the city do what they did to the three remaining Jeffries Towers and sell them off to be renovated?

The Woodbridge Senior Estates, as the three remaining Jeffries Projects are now called, are a success, and for the very reasons we've come two. They are mixed-income.

Why is the city talking about bringing down Brewster? It sounds like more out of convenience than anything else. I'm a big proponent of reuse whatever the structure may be, and while these aren't pretty, I don't see why Brewster can't be modeled on the success of the not-to-distant Woodbridge Estates development.

[Detroit5000]

The only problem I have is the talk of bringing down the Brewster-Douglas Towers. Since we've pretty much decided that it is not that they are towers or the density that's the problem, why can't the city do what they did to the three remaining Jeffries Towers and sell them off to be renovated?

The Woodbridge Senior Estates, as the three remaining Jeffries Projects are now called, are a success, and for the very reasons we've come two. They are mixed-income.

Why is the city talking about bringing down Brewster? It sounds like more out of convenience than anything else. I'm a big proponent of reuse whatever the structure may be, and while these aren't pretty, I don't see why Brewster can't be modeled on the success of the not-to-distant Woodbridge Estates development.

Probably because it's prime land for something else. Maybe they already have a plan to build something on that site. Also, they will look like projects no matter how well you renovate them, and since it is so close to downtown, it isn't the best welcoming image. For example, I've had to explain to a couple of people that the Jeffries aren't projects anymore, even though they have new windows and a new copper roof.

[LMich]

The article made it clear that the reason the Brewster Douglass Towers are being considered for demolition is their state, not that they plan to give up the land. And, I don't find the excuse "well, they look like projects, and people on freeways don't like that" really a good enough excuse against reuse. The Jeffries were in no worse shape and were renovated, so even the excuse that they've become obsolete is really enough an excuse to tear them down. The Woodbridge Senior Towers are market-rate, though age-restricted, towers, and I don't see why Brewster-Douglass could not see a similar rebirth.

I'm just getting tired of the city putting holes in the cities skyline for no other excuse than "just because," and then rebuilding it with townhomes. Just look what's about to happen to the Michigan Executive Plaza on the westside of downtown. The 22-story tower and 11-story low-rise are about to be demolished for a 4 or 5-story low-rise for the FBI and matching parking garage. The city shouldn't be tearing things down if they can't be responsible in the rebuilding of the urban fabric of the city, and we can't just hold them to this standard when it's for buildings we find architecturally pleasing or significant. I some times get the feeling that, sometimes, some of us put looks over actual preservation or the urban fabrice (whatever the structure may be) and reuse when we espouse the values of reuse. Now, if they are talking about replacing Brewster with something equal in size to Brewster, I don't think I could find much error in that if any at all. But, I'm getting the usual feeling that the city is "just tearing down to tear down." Cities need to reusue everything they can from grand, historic hotels to former project towers, whenever possible.

[Detroit5000]

Jeffries East. 252 row house units will be demolished and replaced by 188 low-income units. The new complex will mirror the Woodbridge Estates under construction across the Lodge Freeway. Construction is expected to begin by summer.

Douglass Homes. 661 units, including towers and row houses, are considered obsolete because of outdated electrical and heating systems that are too costly to repair. HUD has been studying options and is expected to decide what to do in the next three to six months, officials said.

Honestly, they are ugly cheap outdated projects. They were built cheaply, ugly, and with low quality to shove the poor somewhere. Detroit also is inflated with senior housing; time for some new ideas, esp. for a booming midtown. I mean people complained about One Kennedy Sq.'s architecture, and they built that on a grassy lot. People bitched about the Brush Park townhomes (on Woodward) by saying its architecture was too suburban. Hello!? It was a risky test development by crosswinds. What would one expect? And out of it we recieved a whole brand new neighborhood, complete with renovated mansions. You have to start somewhere. I hate the whole damned if you do, damned if you don't consensus here.

[LMich]

Honestly, three Jeffries towers were renovated and turned into nice, market-rate housing to fit into a nice, mixed-income neighborhood. Saying that they are ugly to try and make it more better argument to bring them down is just that, a cheap justification. There aesthetics are incredibly irrelevant to their worth. The towers don't need to be brought down, and especially if they aren't being replaced by something of equal density. The city is supposed to be learning from its mistakes, and getting better at rebuilding its urban fabric. If they are going to replace the entire tower portion of the area with some townhomes, they obviously haven't learned anything. The city already started somewhere years ago, now, so they don't need to keep starting from scratch. They actually did good with the Woodbridge Estates, and got the best of both worlds, creative re-use of part of the complex with new construction, and they don't have any good excuse not to do this, again.

I'll hold out full judgement until I find if they even decide to bring down the Brewster-Douglass Towers and build something on the site, but I don't have much hope they are going to replace them properly if they do. For me, this is much larger than simply the demolition of projects, and the idea that "the're just projects" doesn't fly with me, either. And, for further clarification, I'm talking about the towers, specifically. I guess some really buy GM's phrase "Demolition Means Progress."

[Detroit5000]

Honestly, three Jeffries towers were renovated and turned into nice, market-rate housing to fit into a nice, mixed-income neighborhood. Saying that they are ugly to try and make it more better argument to bring them down is just that, a cheap justification. There aesthetics are incredibly irrelevant to their worth. The towers don't need to be brought down, and especially if they aren't being replaced by something of equal density. The city is supposed to be learning from its mistakes, and getting better at rebuilding its urban fabric. If they are going to replace the entire tower portion of the area with some townhomes, they obviously haven't learned anything. The city already started somewhere years ago, now, so they don't need to keep starting from scratch. They actually did good with the Woodbridge Estates, and got the best of both worlds, creative re-use of part of the complex with new construction, and they don't have any good excuse not to do this, again.

I'll hold out full judgement until I find if they even decide to bring down the Brewster-Douglass Towers and build something on the site, but I don't have much hope they are going to replace them properly if they do. For me, this is much larger than simply the demolition of projects, and the idea that "the're just projects" doesn't fly with me, either. And, for further clarification, I'm talking about the towers, specifically. I guess some really buy GM's phrase "Demolition Means Progress."

Honestly, three Jeffries towers were renovated and turned into nice, market-rate housing

The three Jeffries towers are senior housing, which the city already has a surplus of.

The towers don't need to be brought down, and especially if they aren't being replaced by something of equal density. The city is supposed to be learning from its mistakes, and getting better at rebuilding its urban fabric.

This comment doesn't make sense at all. What about the neighborhood they knocked down to build the projects in the first place? If anything tearing them down and restoring the street grid with a nice neighborhood, would be learning from a past mistake and restoring the urban fabric. Take a look at the whole Brewster project complex (including townhomes and towers) and see how much of an auto-centric mega block it is.

[LMich]

The remaining Jeffries are market-rate, age-restricted apartments with the emphasis on market-rate. Why you want to keep painting the renovation as low-income make-up-on-a-pig project says a lot about what you think of them. And, where do you get your information from that Detroit has too much senior housing? You keep repeating it, but you don't have any idea. Detroit, like most of Michigan, is an aging city. If you can show me some solid facts that the city has too much senior housing instead of trying to trumpet your opinion as fact, I'd be happy to see it. Your argument doesn't seem to hinge on much of anything else besides that you personally don't care for the towers. That's hardly a valid argument.

[Detroit5000]

The remaining Jeffries are market-rate, age-restricted apartments with the emphasis on market-rate. Why you want to keep painting the renovation as low-income make-up-on-a-pig project says a lot about what you think of them. And, where do you get your information from that Detroit has too much senior housing? You keep repeating it, but you don't have any idea. Detroit, like most of Michigan, is an aging city. If you can show me some solid facts that the city has too much senior housing instead of trying to trumpet your opinion as fact, I'd be happy to see it. Your argument doesn't seem to hinge on much of anything else besides that you personally don't care for the towers. That's hardly a valid argument.

Midtown is trying to become something new, and different, it wants to attract young urban professionals. I'd much rather see quality condominiums or townhouses on this prime land, right in midtown, adjacent to downtown. I don't have an issue with the Brewster housing, as it's further away, and I also never deemed it as low-income. I think it works as senior housing, further away, but as for midtown and it's prime location I think it deserves better. And although I don't have a link, you only need to drive around to see how many midrises and other buildings in the city and metro to notice how much is dedicated to seniors.

http://dlxs.lib.wayne.edu/cgi/i/image/getimage-idx?view=image;entryid=x-54274;viewid=54274;cc=vmc;c=vmc;quality=1

I don't see this as progress, it's an ugly interruption of the street grid, and contributed to killing off the neighborhood along with the freeways. It was a mistake, and lets fix it. If you don't agree with this point, then fine, lets just agree to disagree.

[LMich]

I'm very much aware of how many housing complexes are around this state is dedicated for senior use. I'd like to see some numbers, though, if you're going to make the claim that it's "too much" senior housing. That's your opinion based on simple anecdotes which we could exchange all day unless you can back it up with something solid. I mean, I wouldn't have a problem with you stating that as your opinion, if you stated it more like an opinion than a fact. If you don't like the towers, which you've made pretty clear, I don't really mind. But, using the opinion that "there is too much senior housing" and "their ugly projects" is hardly a solid argument for demolition of the towers.

However, the argument about the street grid is a pretty good one, and probably the best and only argument with any real weight for the demolition of the Brewster-Douglass.

[illmatic774]

So Jefferies East are the one-story flats?

I had a friend who grew up there actually. I'm all for killing those off. How about some retail to take its place?

[LMich]

Yes, Jeffries East are the public housing east of the Lodge.

[UglymanCometh]

Per usual, everything is economic-based. The Brewster Homes (remaining) will go down because of the relative growth that Midtown is seeing. I'm sure that we're all aware that homes in Brush Park are selling in the 300-400k range nowdays.

The Jeffries Homes' demise will be the last remaining piece of the puzzle to bring development (desirable development, even) to that end of Midtown. It's a cancerous growth that has hindered Midtown's appeal. Where will the current residents end up? Probably somewhere on the near westside (Core City comes to mind), which is fine with me. It'll help clean up that dreaded 3 Av corridor.

[LMich]

Off topic, but through my research I was able to find out that the third Woodbridge Senior Apartments tower (Jeffries Tower 4) will contain a 38-foot clock tower on its new roof. Can anyone confirm if they've started construction on this yet? I was told it would be completed by sometime next month, and I'm wondering if it's simply something they've already premanufactured, or if they are currently constructing it atop the roof. I was also able to find out that the new mansard roofs on the Woodbridge Senior Towers are made of actual metal (probably aluminium). I was surprised to find out it wasn't something cheaper. Also, what they've done on each floor is combined the 8 apartments per floor to create 4 larger apartment units. They've really fixed these up nicely.