[LMich]

Thought I should pass something I found, on.

It seems that if all things go as planned, the first phase/sector of this huge, mixed-residential project will start construction by the end of year. It will consist of an interesting mix of public housing, affordable housing, and market-rate housing at the former Herman Gardens site on the Westside. Along with the diverse usage, it will also have a mix of single family homes, duplexes, rowhouses.

Formerly a 2,144 unit housing project, the housing density is being greatly reduced to 804 units (really kind of unfortunate).

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/download.ashx?t=4&s=11&x=793:796&y=11729:11727&z=17

http://home.comcast.net/~lmontg/wsb/media/1413483/site1033.jpg

First Sector:

http://home.comcast.net/~lmontg/wsb/media/1413483/site1034.jpg

I think the pond is really unneeded, though, and this could have included some high-rises.

[ColDayMan]

Entirely too suburban in the second graphic. The first graphic's central space (maybe I'm looking at this and not "getting it") looks alright, though.

[Cleveland Brown]

^ I agree. Detroiter's do LOVE suburban-esq living! Also, what the fuck is up with the "moat" parallel to the Southfield FWY?

[LMich]

Yes, this is WAY too suburban-styled for my liking. The pond at the Southfield Freeway makes NO sense, to me.

BTW, the houses are to look like those at Woodbridge Estates, so even the look is suburban.

What I do like is that they at least try to continue some of the streets through the complex.

[hudkina]

Uhh... you guys this is the suburbs...;) Just because it's in the city limits (albeit 8 miles outside of downtown), doesn't mean it's not suburban. Dearborn's sprawling Fairlane area is only 1.5 miles down the highway. And even though the surrounding neighborhoods are reletively dense, they're single family homes with garages and limited neighborhood retail. The neighborhoods in this area are similar to what you'll find in Warren or Lincoln Park or most other inner-ring suburban area.

Also, if you assume the average household has 2.5 people, the neighborhood could have over 2,000 people (probably more) in 139 acres which is a density of more than 9,000 ppsm. Even though it has open spaces and is somewhat auto-oriented, it still maintains a higher density than much of the rest of the city.

In fact, this isn't vastly different from what you see in the Lafayette Park area. It may have an even greater urban feel to it since much of the parking looks to be hidden from the street. The only downside is you don't have the tall apartment towers that you see in the Lafayette Park area.

Also, most large-scale developments like this are required to have a retention pond and obviously putting it next to the Southfield freeway makes the most sense. Most people don't want to live directly next to a freeway so having such a buffer makes the housing more desireable. The added attraction of having a park surrounding the pond is nice.

And really, I don't know why we are always so hard on these developments. Sure it would be terrible if this were in the core, but this far outside I'd rather see crappy "suburban" townhouses than 139 acres of empty fields...

[LMich]

Look at the surrounding street-grid of the surrounding neighborhood. Look at this street-grid. They only minimally try to keep the street-grid. I don't care what's if its so many miles from such-and-such, I care about how it fits into the neighborhood around it.

This isn't that bad, though, and I pointed out what I liked about it. The pond, though, is a ridiculous suburban touch.

[UglymanCometh]

Gotta agree with Hudkina here.

1.) It's a HELL of a lot better than what was there before.
2.) It's actually going to look decent in that neighbourhood, which has always been "suburban", like most of Detroit outside of the Grand Boulevard Loop.
3.) There is some urbanity involved... rowhouses in Detroit? Sounds blashpemous to me... lol

As far the lagoon goes... eh, maybe it'll add some character to the neighbourhood. Nothing says "urban beauty" like an artificial expressway-adjacent lagoon.

[LMich]

Maybe I'm being read wrong, here. I think this is a huge improvement over some of the even more suburban neighborhoods that have gone up in Detroit since 2000, or so. That doesn't make it perfect, though. It's because of debates like these that designs have been made better.

[subterranean]

Correct me If I'm wrong, but could the pond be there to facilitate drainage for this huge site?

[LMich]

I doubt it. There was no pond there, before, as one can see, when there was an even greater population density on the site.

The site originally had 2,144 units of physically more dense housing, and now only 804 units, or so.

[Exodus]

My mom grew up in Herman Gardens. That was the only place she lived up intill her and my dad got married. I just hope the new buildings don't look too suburban.

[LMich]

They will look nearly indentical to what's going up at Woodbridge Estates. The first phase is being done by the same architect.

[Exodus]

:previous: Some of the Woodbridge homes look ok, so I suppose it will be an improvement to what's already there actually.

[LMich]

I was trying to avoid showing these, as I think it kind of shows why I'm disappointed, but here we go...

4-unit townhomes

http://home.comcast.net/~lmontg/wsb/media/1413483/site1035.jpg

3-unit townhomes

http://home.comcast.net/~lmontg/wsb/media/1413483/site1036.jpg

Duplex

http://home.comcast.net/~lmontg/wsb/media/1413483/site1037.jpg

Streetview

http://home.comcast.net/~lmontg/wsb/media/1413483/site1038.jpg

When I look at the neighborhood around the site, I can't help but think how much of an island this will be, and how you can find these going up in Canton or Macomb townships at the very moment. But, not even being close to downtown, it will stick out much less, which, I guess, is the good thing. This is what you get, though, with such a heavily government-subsidized development.

[illmatic774]

Completely agreed with Hudkina. This area is nowhere near an urban environment. Go one mile south of this former Herman Gardens complex, and still be able to tell me that this area is, or was ever supposed to be "urban". Perhaps if this was to be developed somewhere in the Cass Corridor, then I'm all for complaining about the layout and design.

I'm confident that the designs of these projects will improve as the city redevelopment process moves forward. I'm not worried about that at all, and that is saying something.

Agree about the pond though. LOL

[LMich]

Maybe the criticism against its nature was a poor fight to pick, but this is in the middle of a uniform neighborhood, with a uniformed, and gridded street. Forget the design. We all know that this is far from outside downtown; it should have kept the street grid all the way through to correct the mistake made with Herman Gardens.

What I do find good is that they were able to keep parking off of the thoroughfares, and at least put it behind housing, so I guess that's a start. But the whole "island-like" nature created by the twisting and turning streets, with minimal entrances and exits can't be excused. This is where the project falls short and didn't have to. It is not asking too much that they should have simply kept the street grid through the development offering better traffic flow and freedom of movement. Not only is it not asking too much, it's the least we could ask. Use as cheap and suburban-looking materials as you want on the housing, I don't care, but for goodness sake keep the street grid. This is not an urban neighborhood, but nor is it suburban, and we shouldn't pretend like there are cul-de-sacs and winding roads nearby.

[Hayward]

It looks alright, but the site plan IMO still has a public housing feel to it (with the excxeption of the center part) The way the buildings are clustered and all.....

[hudkina]

The pond is a requirement. They certainly wouldn't waste the space if they didn't have to. I'm sure the reason there was no pond before had to do with the code when the site was originally developed. If you look at any large development now, including suburban neighborhoods, shopping plazas, etc. nearly all of them have a retention pond to contain runoff.

Also, I think the "grid" is maintained reasonably well, especially along Tireman where the single-family homes are located. I don't see why strictly adhering to the grid would make the neighborhood better or worse, especially when there are no cul-de-sacs or dead ends.

[Exodus]

Maybe the criticism against its nature was a poor fight to pick, but this is in the middle of a uniform neighborhood, with a uniformed, and gridded street. Forget the design. We all know that this is far from outside downtown; it should have kept the street grid all the way through to correct the mistake made with Herman Gardens.
Correct, this might not be downtown, but it isn't quite as suburban of an area as people make it out to be. The area has walkable main streets, and fairly tight housing on an urban/city street grid. Just because the areas structures are around 50 years old on average instead of a hundred doesn't make it suburban. Compare the area to the typical suburban communities these days, and you can see that it is more of a newer urban area instead of a suburban area.

[hudkina]

It is as suburban as Warren or Roseville or Easpointe or Oak Park or Lincoln Park or Melvindale, etc. It may not be sprawltopia, but it has more in common with the inner-ring suburbs than it does with the core.

[Exodus]

:previous: Yeah, and some of those inner ring burbs are really only suburbs anymore by a technicality. Some neighborhoods in those inner ring burbs are close to a half a century old and have normal street grids and walkable mainstreets, so to a degree they aren't typical suburbia. Especially Melvindale and Lincoln Park. As a matter of fact, much of the neighborhoods in places like Melvindale and Lincoln Park aren't much different than some of the innercity neighborhoods in Huntsville. So the way I see it, the 6 and 7 mile areas are urban, just not quite as old as downtown of course. Look at it this way, 50 years ago when Detroit was peaking, much of the innercity neighborhoods were about as old as some of the places you've mentioned, and those neighborhoods were considered urban then. I think there is a slight difference between innercity(downtown and the adjoining neighborhoods immediately around downtown), and urban. It's pretty much how a neighborhood is built and laid out, and not necessarily age that constitutes an urban environment.

This is northwest Detroit, and this is as far as 7 Mile. Would this be considered suburban ?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/509777856_94caf09f3d_o.jpg

This pic is in Queens, which is part of NYC, and one could argue that this particular section of Queens/NYC is more suburban than the area shown above in Detroit.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/217/509777858_922aca560b_o.jpg

And look at many areas of L.A. for example. So no, I wouldn't call northwest Detroit suburban no more than I would certain sections of Queens or L.A. I know some people might, so at the very least it is subjective.

BTW, I think the new housing is an improvement over the older housing projects.

[ColDayMan]

They are all suburban. And of course sections of New York and Los Angeles are "suburban." Hell, look at most of Staten Island.

[LMich]

A complete exaggeration.

Anyway, turns out that the pond is a county-required storm-water retention feature, but it isn't the only option for storm-water retention. It just happens to be the easiest (i.e. cheapest) option, I believe.

[hudkina]

Which I stated twice above.;)

[Folk313]

Exodus:

No, that is not considered suburban. This type of neighborhood development is the most common in American cities. There is mass confusion over what 'urban' in America really is. Many are under the impression that an 'urban' condition is one characterized by extremely high density, tall buildings, and assets like subway systems. Most urban areas in this country look like the pictures you posted. Much of Chicago, for example, looks like this, but with a higher frequency of courtyard apartment buildings in some parts of the city.

It's more imporant to consider social, economic, cultural, and landscape structures when determining the difference between urban and suburban, not the lack of skyscrapers, high density, or whatever else many folks seem to consider exclusively 'urban.'