Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian
I was under the impression that the original proposal wasn't going to cost as much since this redesign comes with a bigger price tag. Also Dan Gilbert through Bedrock is financing most of the Hudson's project and he's stated before that he's well aware that he'll lose money on the first few years on the project. Though that's why he owns so much other real estate around downtown to soften the blow.
The original design would have actually had a lot of empty space because of the odd shaped areas on the ground floor. One of the freep articles mentions that the redesign moved a lot of the retail space from the basement to the ground floor. It has nothing to do with Detroit's desirability and entirely more to do with Gilbert being able to make money off the space inside his building. The redesign probably allows for bigger and/or possibly more numerous retailers.
|
Well my point is there's no incentive for Gilbert to build something as grandiose as you desire, because he's simply not going to get a Chicago or NYC-type of ROI on it. After all, he is a businessman first and foremost. The Hudson site project is essentially nothing more than him saying he built something transformative in the city.
The fact that he's the only one to propose anything in Detroit of its scale and he has to pay for it entirely out of pocket IMO shows that it's not economically feasible otherwise if it were left up to true free market principles, this wouldn't be happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian
Huh? I never said anything about Detroit being unable to support high density, but more along the lines that Detroit wouldn't likely have a mass growth of high density projects abutting low-rise areas, like Houston. My point was with places like New Center and even along Jefferson, high rises were built in areas that otherwise had low-rise development. There's not necessarily always a smooth transition between low density and high density areas.
|
Now I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. What does "high density projects abutting low-rise areas" mean? They're not mutually exclusive, as it's possible to have high density (as in high population density) with low-rise development (see Brooklyn or the neighborhoods in Philadelphia as an example).
Concerning high rises you see in areas that are surrounded by mostly low-rise development (I guess you're referring to places like the Lee Plaza or the Fisher Building), you have to bear in mind when and how the city grew in the first place. Detroit was on the verge of a massive skyscraper boom during the 1920s, but the depression basically killed that momentum. When developers of the high rises along Jefferson and the New Center area constructed their buildings, there was good reason to believe at the time that they'd soon be surrounded by other high rises in the near future (given the city's rapid growth). The same exact thing is/was happening in Atlanta. When BOA Plaza and One Atlantic Center were built, they were also surrounded by a bunch of low-rise development. Fast forward to today and a ton of other skyscrapers have gone up and are going up around them. Same thing occurred in NYC and Chicago as well. Unfortunately, in Detroit, that never happened.
That being said, I don't see how having these now seemingly out-of-place high rises in the areas you mentioned have/had any bearing on the density of the surrounding areas. They were still crowded / bustling neighborhoods and in terms of how land was utilized, it was all cohesive at the time (in other words, no vacant land).
As a final point, Detroit, at least in theory, has zoning laws to ensure cohesive land development and the smooth transition between higher and low density areas (having them enforced is an entirely different discussion). Houston has absolutely no zoning laws, so it's not comparable.