Greater Downtown Strategy

greater downtown tod strategy
prepared for: downtown detroit partnership detroit economic growth corp. prepared by: hamilton anderson december, 2011
M- 1
T OD
1.0 Understanding the Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor

1.1 The Opportunity 1.2 What is TOD? 1.3 Incorporating Active Plans 1.4 National Best Practices 1.5 The Challenge 1.6 The Greater Downtown Today 6 10 12 14 16 20
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by the Ford Foundation. Members of the Greater Downtown Planning Group included: Detroit Economic Growth Corporation Downtown Detroit Partnership Midtown Detroit, Inc. Kresge Foundation Hudson Webber Invest Detroit Compuware Detroit Medical Center Henry Ford Health System Illitch Holdings Quicken Loans Wayne State University City Planning Commission DDOT P&DD DTC/DPM Hamilton Anderson Associates provided technical and graphic support for this document.
2.0 Building a Shared Vision

2.1 People and Process 2.2 Greater Downtown TOD Planning Group 2.3 Stakeholder interviews and work sessions 2.4 Community Engagement 2.5 Guiding Principles 2.6 Objectives and Priorities 54 58 60 62 64 66
3.0 The Greater Downtown TOD Strategy

3.1 Complete Districts and Neighborhoods 3.2 Aspiration, Capacity and Demand 3.3 The Greater Downtown TOD Strategy 3.4 Phasing and Funding 3.5 Priority Walking Streets 3.6 Community Building 3.7 Implications of Station Locations 3.8 Development Case Study: Portland Pearl District 80 84 90 96 102 104 108 110
4.0 Action Plans

4.1 Corridor 4.1.1 Land Use and Regulatory Changes 4.1.2 Financing 4.1.3 Infrastructure 4.1.4 Parking 4.2 District 4.2.1 CBD 4.2.2 Midtown 4.2.3 New Center 4.3 Neighborhood 4.3.1 Financial District 4.3.2 MGM/DTE 4.3.3 Greektown/BCBS 4.3.4 Entertainment District 4.3.5 Lower Cass 4.3.6 Brush Park 4.3.7 Detroit Medical Center 4.3.8 Wayne State University 4.3.9 Art Center 4.3.10 Milwaukee Junction 4.3.11 Northend 120 122 132 136 150 154 156 166 176 186 188 190 192 194 196 198 200 202 204 206 208
1.0 Understanding the Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor

1.1 The
Opportunity is TOD? Active Plans
1.2 What
1.3 Incorporating 1.4 National 1.5 The 1.6 The
Best Practices
Challenge Greater Downtown Today
Draft for review and comment
WOODWARD (M-1)
1.1 understanding the opportunity
THIRD STREET
EUCLID
ROSA PARKS
VIRGINA PARK
MELBOURNE MT VERNON
SEWARD
MARSTON
DELAWARE
CHANDLER CLAY SMITH
NEW CENTER
GRAND
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM
NE E BETHUNE
TH BETHUNE R CUSTER
NORTH END
LOTHRO LOTH OP LOTHROP
NEW CENTER
HORTON
MILWA AU AU UK KEE K EE MILWAUKEE BALTIMORE BALTIM MORE M RE E
AMST AMSTER AMSTERD STER RDAM RDA R AM M
The Opportunity
I think the broader question for Michigan is, when youre competing for talent, not just domestically, but globally, the younger generation in the world is looking for quality places. A lot of those quality places would be traditional cities with their downtowns and their waterfronts and their cultural institutions, and that sort of magic mix of street life. If you dont have cities that have that, its hard to imagine how you can compete for the talent of the world. --Bruce Katz, Vice President, Brookings Institution; founding Director, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/BruceKatz411.aspx
I-94
TECHTOWN
BURROUG UR OUGHS HS
PIQUETTE
I-75
PALLISTER
PALLISTER
OAKLAND
E-W CONNECTIONS
M-10 - Lodge
BEAUBIEN STREET
SECOND AVE.
JOHN R STREET
BRUSH STREET
I-94
PER HARPER MEDBURY
YORK
ANTOINET NETTE E
R DR HENDRIE
PALMER P A ALMER
PALMER
FE FERRY
FERRY
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

WARREN
KIRBY BY RBY IRBY KIRBY KIRB

KIRBY CULTURAL U ASS DOU DOUGL KD CK ICK REDERI R FREDER F FR DISTRICT
R ORTH WORTH N W NSW R RN RNSW FAR FARN FARNSW M NAM TN UTNAM UTN PUT PUTNAM PUTN P PU H FARNSWORTH
K CK NCOCK HAN HANCOC
COCK COCK NC NCOCK HANCOC
In recent years, Detroit has seen a confluence of will in the public, private and philanthropic sectors to reshape the city into a place that is not only sustainable, but competitive with other world cities. Major initiatives from the HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities program to the philanthropic sectors Integration Initiative and New Economy Initiative to the private sectors Anchor Investment Strategy and Webward 2.0 to the City of Detroits Detroit Works Project are focusing on building stronger neighborhoods and creating jobs. Woodward Light Rail, with its place as a permanent piece of infrastructure along the central spine of the city, is the centerpiece of this wave of thought, action and investment. Woodward Light Rail will permanently connect the major regional destinations, employment, educational and medical centers in the Greater Downtown area with neighborhoods, improve access to jobs and services for residents along the corridor, and offer a new opportunity to live in a walkable environment. With a direct link to 125,000 jobs, 275,000 residents, destinations attracting 15 million annual visitors and 15 distinct neighborhoods that include several National Historic Districts, cultural destinations, schools, places of worship and community institutions, the Woodward Light Rail corridor represents an opportunity to rethink how people move in Detroit between home, work, shopping and recreation. This investment in light rail on Woodward Avenue represents much more than a better way to get from point A to point B. When
MIDTOWN
CANFIELD WILLIS
GARFIELD
DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER
ALEXANDRINE
THIRD
SELDEN
SELDEN
S NS ARSON PARSO
BRAINARD
ST ANTOINE ST.
F FOREST
FOREST
ST. ANTOINE
GR AN D RI VE R
MLK
T RT ORT PORT VENPO V AV A AVENP D DA DAVEN
MACK
ELLIOT
ELIOT
N SON MSON MSO STIMSO

PETERBORO
K E SK S RSK ERSKIN PETERBORO
MOTOR CITY
FOURTH
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE
BRUSH WATSON PARK

EDMUND PL ALFRED
WATSON WILKINS
BREWSTER
TEMPLE
TEMPLE
ALFRED
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
LOWER LE CASS LEDYARD

SECOND
SPROAT ADELAIDE Y EY SIBLEY HENRY N R IN WI WINDE
EASTERN MARKET
GR
AT
IO
PARK AVE
I-75
M LM CALM CA TC NT MON MONTCALM MON

COLUMBIA
M ONTCALM ONTC MONTCALM
MIC
HIG
PLUM PLUM
BIA MB UMBIA COLUMBIA COLUMBIA COL
AN
MGM/DTE ELIZABETH ELIZA ELIZ ZA AB BETH B BET ETH

THIRD THIR RD
BAGLEY
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT H TH BETH ZAB ELIZABET ELIZABE ELIZ ELIZAB

M AM DAMS AD A ADAMS
JO HN R
WA SH IN NG T TO NB LVD
CBD
OT BO ABB ABBOT ABBO RD HO ARD HOWA FINANCIAL ETTE DISTRICT LAFAY LA
GRIS GR ISW WO OL LD LD
ON N TON NGTO HINGTO SHING WASH W WASH
RST FIRST
RAN R ANDOLPH NDOL RANDOLPH LPH H
O D FO LIFFO LIFFO CLIFFOR CLIFFO C CLIFF
MADISON MA A
CE NT RE
MULLET CLINTON MB OMB MACO M MACOM
AY DW OA BR
R ER ARM FA F
STA T TE E
CAMPUS E MARTIUS RO ON
CA DIL AC
LD LD OLD GRISWO
E OE O ROE ONRO ON MONRO M MONR MO GREEKTOWN
LAFAYETTE PARK
LAFAYETTE
ER RM FA
T FORT
ND OND SECO SECO
FORT
SQ UA RE
R RESS GRESS G CONG LARNED
Above: Jameson Square, Portland, OR, development built around creating high-quality public space. Right: Diagram showing east-west connections to neighborhoods, districts and destinations off of the Woodward Light Rail line in the Greater Downtown.
COBO/ JOE LOUIS
SHELBY
RESS RESS GR G CONG
JEFFERSON
HART PLAZA
RENAISSANCE CENTER
DETROIT RIV
ER
WOODWARD (M-1
JOHN R STREET
1.1 understanding the opportunity
THIRD STREET
EUCLID
ROSA PARKS
VIRGINA PARK
SEWARD
DELAWARE CLAY
GRAND
NEW CENTER
BETHUNE LOTHROP
NORTHEND
New Center/Northend Key Statistics

Population: 7,302 Households: 3,714 Employees: 23,111
NEW CENTER PARK MILWAUKEE

BALTIMORE
AMTRAK
AMSTERDAM
PIQUETTE
BURROUGHS TECHTOWN
I-75
PALLISTER
PALLISTER
OAKLAND
CORRIDOR OVERVIEW
M-10 - Lodge
BEAUBIEN STREET
SECOND AVE.
BRUSH STREET
I-94
HARPER MEDBURY
YORK
ANTOINETTE
successfully planned and executed, Woodward Light Rail will be a catalyst for neighborhood/city building and placemaking initiatives, including: Creating a catalyst for job growth in the Woodward Corridor Establishing the Woodward Corridors role in the region as the best transit served area and urban/walkable place to live Enhancing the Corridors economic vitality through the growth of its greater downtown core and revitalization of its many diverse neighborhoods Enhancing the Corridor as tourist destination and a regional gathering place Beginning the dialogue between the many residents, businesses and stakeholders for whom the Woodward Corridor is part of their daily lives and creating new partnerships between them Serving as the example or template for additional light rail corridors in the City and the region In short, Woodward Light Rail is an opportunity to reposition the Woodward Corridor and the City of Detroit as a contemporary, healthy and livable urban center that inspires residents, workers and visitors alike.
HENDRIE
PALMER
PALMER
I-94
FERRY
FERRY
ART CENTER
PECK PARK
KIRBY ASS
KIRBY KIRBY
CULTURAL DISTRICT
PUTNAM FARNSWORTH
FREDERICK DOUGL
FARNSWORTH
Midtown Key Statistics

Population: 14,550 Households: 7,329 Employees: 34,813 WSU/CCS Students: 34,076
WARREN
HANCOCK HANCOCK
GARFIELD
MIDTOWN
CANFIELD
WILLIS
ALEXANDRINE
THIRD
SELDEN
SELDEN
WIGLE PLAYFIELD
PARSONS
BRAINARD
ST. ANTOINE
FOREST
FOREST
ST. ANTOINE
GR AN D RI VE R
TOLAN PLAYFIELD
MLK
DAVENPORT
MACK
ELLIOT
ELIOT
STIMSON
PETERBORO
ERSKINE PETERBORO WATSON CHARLOTTE EDMUND PL
CHARLOTTE
LOWER CASS
BRUSH PARK
WATSON WILKINS
MOTOR CITY
FOURTH
BREWSTER
TEMPLE
TEMPLE ALFRED SPROAT ADELAIDE
ALFRED
CASS PARK
LEDYARD
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
SIBLEY HENRY WINDER
EASTERN MARKET
GR
AT
IO
PARK AVE
SECOND
I-75
MONTCALM
COLUMBIA
MONTCALM
MIC
HIG
PLUM
COLUMBIA
ELIZABETH
AN
ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT
CLIFFORD
MGM
ELIZABETH
GRAND CIRCUS PARK

JO HN
ADAMS
LVD
BAGLEY
WASHINGTON
FIRST
LAFAYETTE
N MO
SECOND
GRISWOLD
FORT
FINANCIAL DISTRICT
SHELBY
CA CAMPUS DIL AC MARTIUS SQ
RANDOLPH
Population: 5,287 Households: 3,352 Employees: 67,812 Sports Aendance: 3,776,801
GRISW
ING
CBD
NT
RE
OLD
NB
MULLET CLINTON MACOMB MONROE
ABBOT
WA
STAPARK TE
CAPITOL
LAFAYETTE PARK
GREEKTOWN
DEQUINDRE CUT
CBD Key Statistics
CE
TO
SH
THIRD
HOWARD CONGRESS
MADISON
BR OA
FAR MER
RO
E
FA RM ER
DW AY
FORT
LAFAYETTE
UA
RE
CONGRESS LARNED
JEFFERSON
COBO HART PLAZA RENAISSANCE CENTER

RIVERWALK
Right: Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor overview map (Source: HAA, D3, DEGC, DDP, SEMCOG, WSU, CCS, espn.com)
M-1 Corridor Key Statistics

Total Population: 27,139 Total Employees: 125,736 Total Vistiors: 15,000,000
DETROIT RIV
ER
1.2 understanding what is tod?
improved access to jobs and services
What is TOD?
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) seeks to align transit investments with a communitys vision for how it wants to grow, creating a livable mixed-use, walkable city. Successful TOD will reinforce both the community and the transit system. Four Basic Principles of Transit-Oriented Development 1. A Mix of Uses A transit supportive environment includes a mixture of residential, commercial, service, employment, and public uses making many trips between destinations shorter and more walkable. 2. Quality Non-Motorized Environment Vibrant communities, with or without transit, are always convenient and comfortable places for pedestrians. 3. A Defined Center Transit is particularly successful in communities and neighborhoods that have defined centers, offering multiple attractions and reasons for pedestrians to frequent the area. 4. Create Density A key ingredient for walkable communities and support for transit is having sufficient residential densities to reduce walking distances between residences and other destinations, including commercial services, schools, parks, and transit.
permanently linked destinations

NEW CENTER
WOODWARD
I-94
M-10
EUCLID
1/2 M. RADIUS 1/4 M. RADIUS
MIDTOWN
I-75
I-75
CBD
JEFFERSON
DETROIT RIVER
the opportunity to live in a walkable environment
Above: The 1/2 mile walking radius in the Greater Downtown lays out between the M-10 and I-75 freeways; all points within the Greater Downtown should be walkable to transit; the 1/4 mile walking radius is the zone of greatest economic development. Right: Three primary goals of the Greater Downtown TOD Strategy targeted at the three primary rider groups: residents, employees and visitors
10
I-375
11
WOODWARD (M-1
1.3 understanding active plans
THIRD STREET
EUCLID
ROSA PARKS
VIRGINA PARK
SEWARD
E DELAWARE
OAKLAND
CLAY
PLANNING STUDIES
M-10 - Lodge
BETHUNE TH
LOTHROP LOTH
GRAND
MILWAUKEE AU UK E BALTIMORE
Henry Ford Hospital South Campus Neighborhood Plan

AMSTERDA AM M
Incorporating Active Plans

The Greater Downtown TOD Strategy seeks not to create another plan, but to incorporate and synthesize all active plans and initiatives already being implemented throughout the Greater Downtown and leverage the light rail investment to further accelerate these efforts. Working in close partnership with the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, University Cultural Center Association, and the New Center Council, Inc. (the later two now merged as Midtown Detroit, Inc.), the TOD team conducted a series of one-on-one meetings with stakeholders throughout the Corridor to collect active plans and receive updates on their current initiatives. Additional plans were gathered from the consultant teams experience working in the Corridor. In all, 92 plans were gathered, spanning 30 years of planning efforts. These plans were then distilled into current initiatives and mapped across the Greater Downtown. Active plans and initiatives can be broken down into the following categories: 1. Development Plans 2. Urban Design Plans 3. Institutional Master Plans 4. City Master Plan and City Policy 5. Transportation and Greenway Plans Additionally, major initiatives being undertaken by the City of Detroit and the philanthropic community have been incorporated, including the Detroit Works Project, 15 by 15, Anchor Investment Strategy, New Economy Initiative, Living Cities, and the Creative Corridor. Throughout the TOD Strategy planning process, TOD recommendations have been referenced and checked against current plans and initiatives to ensure their compatibility. See appendix for complete list of plans and initiatives.
I-94 Rehabilitation Project - 12/09
PIQUETTE
I-75
PALLISTER
PALLISTER
New Center Economic Development Plan - 05/97
BEAUBIEN STREET
SECOND AVE.
JOHN R STREET
BRUSH STREET
BURROUGHS BURR BURROUG HS
I-94
HARPER MEDBURY
YORK
Techtown Vision - 09/06
ANTOI TOINET NETT NET NETTE TTE TE
TRANSIT
HENDRIE
People Mover Route People Mover stop Greenway Links (Non-motorized)
PALMER P A ALMER
PALMER
I-94
FE FERR FERRY
FERRY
Y IRBY KIRBY Y KIRBY

KIRBY ASS
Additional Studies: Downtown Detroit Residential Market Study - 09/06 City of Detroit Non-Motorized Transportation Plan - 06/06 New Center Connector Non-Motorized Plan - 12/09 City of Detroit Master Plan - 07/09 City of Detroit Tranditional Main Street Overlay Areas - 2006 Social Compact Market Drilldown Analysis - 10/07 Brookings Institute - Downtown Detroit in Focus - 10/07
GR
F FREDERICK DOUGL
Usage Economic Development Institutional Master Plan District Master Plan
2020 Wayne State Campus Master Plan - 09/01 WARREN
FARNSWORTH M UTNAM PUTNAM FARNSWORTH
K CK OCK NCO HANCOC HANCO HAN H
Midtown Loop Master Plan - 01/09 HANCO K HANCOC

ST ANTOINE ST. ANTOI NE
Residential Development Greenways/Parks
North Cass Strategy - 01/09
ST OREST FO Sugar Hill ArtsFOREST FOREST FOREST District - 02/09 ARF D GARFIEL G
DMC-Vanguard A New Partnership for Detroit - 04/10
D IELD NFIELD NFI CANFIELD CANFIEL CA
WILLIS
Detroit Renaissance Creative Corridor - 06/08
THIRD
ST. ANTOINE
AN D RI VE R
SELDEN S BRAINARD
Garden Block Redevelopment

N SELDEN
E RINE ALEXANDRIN
S NS ARSON PARSO
MLK
T RT ORT PORT VENPO AVENP A DA DAVEN D
MACK
ELLIOT
ELIOT
STIMSON
Cornerstone Estates - 10/08
PETERBORO
ERSKINE PETERBORO WATSON
WATSON WILKINS
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE EDMUND PL
BREWSTER
TEMPLE E
ALFRED
Eastern Market District Economic Development Strategy - 09/08
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
LEDYARD ARD
GR
AT
IO
PARK AVE
FOURTH SECOND
SIBLEY HENRY WINDER
I-75
M LM CALM N CA ON MONTCALM MON
M ONTCALM MONTCALM
MIC
COLU BIA COLUM A
HIG
AN
BIA MB UMBIA LUMBIA COLUMBIA COL CO Detroit PLUM Entertainment District Urban Design Plan - 05/07 ELIZAB H TH BETH ZAB ELIZABET ELIZABE ELIZ
ORD FOR LIFFOR LIFFOR LIFF CLIFF CLIFFOR C
ELIZABETH
M AM DAMS ADAMS ADA AD A
WA SH ING T TO ON BLV D
CE NT RE
GRIS GR ISW WO OL LD D
Paradise ValleyMULLET Master Plan - 07/08

CLINTON MACOMB MONROE
ABBOT
STA TE T
Dequindre Cut Greenway
West District Reinvestment Strategy - 10/09 BAGLEY Downtown Detroit Retail Strategy - 03/11
JO HN R
WASHINGTON
FIRST
LAFAYETTE
SECOND
CA DIL AC
GRISWOLD
Campus Martius Redevelopment Plan - 12/97 FORT

SQ UA RE
CONGRESS LARNED
FORT
RANDOLPH
Above: Photograph of Corridor plans conceptually connected and leveraged through Woodward Light Rail (Source: HAA) Right: A map of active Greater Downtown plans and initiaitives (Source: HAA)
Detroit West Riverfront District Plan - 03/07
SHELBY
THIRD
HOWARD CONGRESS
MA AD A DIS DISON D SON ON N MADISON
AY DW OA BR
ER RM FA
DETROIT RIV
Hart Plaza Plan - 03/07
MER FAR
LAFAYETTE
OE NR MO
JEFFERSON
ER
East Riverfront District Plan - 03/07
12
13
1.4 understanding best practices
Cleveland Improved both neighborhood connectivity and connections to educational and medical centers Helped spur infill development to create greater density Infrastructure as catalyst to encourage public-private partnerships
National Best Practices

The Greater Downtown TOD Strategy is built upon the experience of transit corridors throughout the U.S. and has applied best practices based on those experiences. Throughout the TOD Strategy planning process, the Center for Transit Oriented Development (CTOD) was a partner and critic in the development of the plan, providing insight on national best practices for TOD planning and implementation. CTOD provided analysis of four comparable transit corridors that share similarities with the Woodward Corridor: Houston (Red Line), Minneapolis-St. Paul (Central Corridor), Charlotte (Blue Line) and Cleveland (Health Line). Major lessons learned from their analysis include: Transit investment is critical to a city/regions economic competitiveness Connecting major destinations (jobs, institutions, entertainment) can generate investment, ridership Must plan and build for surrounding neighborhood, not just the corridor alone Starting small is a great way to create big support for transit Additionally, the CTOD team emphasized the importance of building on the assets of existing neighborhoods over taking a parcel-based approach centered around the station area. As an example, CTOD provided background on the public-private partnership that catalyzed development in the Pearl District around the Portland Streetcar. There, the City working closely with private developers was able to provide infrastructure to support the creation of walkable mixedincome communities. Similarly, working with U3 Ventures, the planning team looked at University City, Philadelphia for ways that in addition to the light rail investment, communities could leverage the resources of educational and medical anchor institutions to spur neighborhood development. Through these partnerships the planning team learned to take a multipronged approach with the ultimate goal focused on the creation of vibrant, walkable neighborhoods. Houston Starting small, and local is okay One-line successes can generate broad regional support for expansion Connecting jobs is a great way to capture ridership Supporting bus transit is key
Charlotte A modest, 6-stop line generated new development before longer 2007 line opened Proactive City efforts to coordinate development and transit, including infrastructure investment Significant land speculation has made it difficult to build affordable housing Fears of concentrated poverty resulted in policies discouraging affordable housing near transit where low income households need it most Larger parcels near downtown have developed, but areas farther down the line have not captured investment Minneapolis-St. Paul Multi-jurisdictional Central Corridor working group convening to coordinate public investments near transit Corridor includes low-income neighborhoods that could benefit from revitalization and investment But, concerns about displacement of existing residents and businesses, fueled by rising property values Need for supportive infrastructure around transit, and community visioning and engagement Support for emerging tools to aid in equitable TOD implementation, e.g., acquisition funds Creative strategies to assist public sector in building infrastructure
Right: National case studies cited by the Center for Transit Oriented Development (CTOD) to assist Detroit develop a set of TOD Strategies around Woodward Light Rail (Source: CTOD, HAA)
14
15
1.5 understanding the challenge
I- 69
St. Clair County
Point Huron
Greater Downtown Today: The Challenge

Density = Walkability The greatest challenge facing the Greater Downtown today is its lack of density. The Greater Downtown has over 120,000 employees in a diverse range of employment sectors and incomes; it attracts over 15 million visitors a year to its museums, stadiums, theaters, restaurants and medical facilities; it has over 40,000 college and university students; but despite these numbers that compare favorably with cities both regionally and nationally, the Greater Downtowns residential population only stands at 25,000 residents and has in fact declined over the last ten years. The solution to the problem is more complicated than simply adding more residents; the residential population needs to be strategically increased to create density and thus contiguous areas of vibrancy and walkability. The built environment in the Greater Downtown has evolved to privilege the automobile over the pedestrian. Because of the large numbers of commuting employees and students as well as peak demand for sporting and entertainment events, a large proportion of the land area in the Greater Downtown is devoted to parking. This has created major gaps in the urban fabric between destinations that have deteriorated the pedestrian environment to the point where even when a destination is at a walkable distance, the quality of the pedestrian-experience often precludes the option to walk. When you compare the ratio of employees to residents in Greater Downtown Detroit to that of Greater Downtown Philadelphia, you find that Philadelphia has 235,000 employees and 140,000 residents in its a downtown, a 2:1 ratio in comparison to Detroits 5:1 ratio. Because of the Philadelphias low ratio of employees to residents, 45% of downtown Philadelphia employees walk to work; in Detroit, only 10% of Greater Downtown residents both live and work in the Greater Downtown. Detroit also lacks density of retail amenities. While the Greater Downtown is home to many of the regions most successful
Royal Oak - 4th Ave. and Main
I-
75
Oakland County
Macomb County
Troy Bloomfield Township Royal Oak Farmington Hills

I- 696
Warren
Lake St. Clair
Gross Pointe
Birmingham - Pierce and Merrill

Livonia Ann Arbor Dearborn Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport
Detroit
See inset
Roy
I- 69
Windsor, Canada
Wayne County Monroe County

US Highway 23
Detroit - Canfield and Cass

Above: A comparison of the density of retail amenities within a 1/4-mile of the center of competitive regional Detroit downtowns: Royal Oak - 144 retail amenities; Birmingham - 98 retail amenities; Detroit Midtown - 22 retail amenities. (Source: HAA) Right: Map of the distribution of Wayne State University employees residences throughout the Detroit Metro region (Source: U3 Ventures, CTOD)
I- 275
Dear
Lake Erie
16
17
1.5 understanding the challenge
CBD, DETROIT: 6.0 PEOPLE/ACRE
restaurants, retailers and service providers, these retail amenities are scattered over the 3.5 square miles of the Greater Downtown and are not walkable between retail destinations. At the corner of Midtowns Canfield and Cass, arguably the Greater Downtowns most up-and-coming retail node, there are only 20 retail amenities within a quarter mile. Compare this to retail areas in downtown Birmingham and Royal Oak which have 95 and 144 retail amenities respectively within a quarter mile and you find that Greater Downtown Detroit lacks any area of retail amenities that contains the critical mass of density to become a regional destination and compete with other regional downtowns. The Greater Downtown TOD Strategy takes on the challenge of density as its core problem. Its basic premise is to increase the density of residents and retail amenities within the Greater Downtown in order to improve walkability, create more vibrant districts and neighborhoods and leverage the light rail investment as a pedestrian accelerator to improve access to destinations throughout the Greater Downtown. What follows is a description and analysis of the existing conditions within the Greater Downtown. The TOD Strategy is built upon the existing assets and current initiatives moving forward in the Woodward Corridor. It seeks to leverage the efforts and investments that have already been started within the Greater Downtown to catalyze future development; therefore a thorough understanding and analysis of the existing conditions is critical to the success of the TOD Strategy.
Peer Cities as a Measure of Success

Greater Downtown Detroit 10.0 people/acre - 25,000 residents University City, Philadelphia 20.0 people/acre - 50,000 residents Center/University City, Philadelphia 30.0 people/acre - 75,000 residents
MIDTOWN, DETROIT: 12.3 PEOPLE/ACRE
NEW CENTER, DETROIT: 8.9 PEOPLE/ACRE
Above: The residential density of peer cities bears out that people living and working together create vibrant and walkable cities. If Detroit were to double its residential population in the Greater Downtown to 50,000 residents, it would resemble the current density of University City, Philadelphia. If Detroit were to triple its residential population, it would resemble University and Center City, Philadelphia combined. Its no coincidence 45% of University/ Center City residents are able to walk to work.(Source: City-Data.com) Right: Aerial photographs of Detroit, CBD, Midtown and New Center relative to University City and Center City, Philadelphia. District areas are taken over the entire district; block densities within the district can exceed 200 residents per acre. (Source: City-Data.com)
UNIVERSITY CITY, PHILADELPHIA: 20.1 PEOPLE/ACRE
CENTER CITY, PHILADELPHIA: 30.0 PEOPLE/ACRE
18
19
1.6 understanding the downtown today

7.6 12.6 22.3 16 5.1 6.9 8.7 0.4 3.6 2 0.6

37.2%
7.6% 5.1%
7.6 17.2 8 4.9

7.1% 5.1% 14.4% 20.7%
9.6% 11.9%
0% 36.4% 27.2%
43.8% 11.1% 0%
11.7
9.9
11.5
69.2%
43.1%
18.4%
Greater Downtown Today - Demographics

17.1
16.6 9.4
11.4
66.8% 8.1% 51.8% 25.8% 22.4% 11%
26.7
4.7 10.5
30%
The Greater Downtown has several key demographic assets that should prove to benefit the implementation of the TOD Strategy. It has a larger percentage of young college educated residents than the city as a whole. While the presence of Wayne State University accounts for some of this demographic trend, the Greater Downtown has also proven to be an attractive place to live for young professionals just completing their college education. Additionally the Greater Downtown shows greater racial and ethnic diversity than the city as whole. Having a diverse residential profile should prove to be welcoming as new residents move into the area. Despite these strengths, the overall income levels of Greater Downtown residents remains relatively low in comparison with the metropolitan region as a whole. 78% of all Greater Downtown households earn less than $50,000 per year and qualify as low-income. However the Greater Downtown is still the Detroit regional job center with over 122,000 jobs of which 57% pay salaries above $40,000 per year. Part of the challenge of the TOD Strategy will be to match Greater Downtown employment to the skill sets of existing and future residents. Race & Ethnicity The Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor has a smaller proportion of Hispanic residents than the city as a whole. Within the Corridors non-Hispanic population, there is more racial and ethnic diversity compared to the city as a whole. Of all three Corridor areas, Midtown is the most diverse; the non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Asian, and multi-racial populations make up a larger proportion of residents than is found in the Corridor as a whole or the city generally. Within the Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor, the largest racial/ethnic group is non-Hispanic Black, which makes up 69.6% of the Corridors population. Though the majority, the percentage of non-Hispanic Blacks within the Corridor is smaller than within the city as a whole, 82.2%. Overall, this group makes up 62.7% of Midtowns population, 69.6% of the CBDs population, and 88.0% of the population in the North End / New Center area.
Summary
There is a much lower percentage of youth in the Greater Downtown corridor as compared to the City as a whole
Median income in the Greater Downtown is 60% of City Median Income and 30% of Area Median Income 57% of Greater Downtown jobs earn salaries above $40,000/year
3.7
3.7 13.1 12 9 8.1

3.9% 11.2% 8.2%
3.6% 5.4% 6.1%
6.7 29.3 1.1 10.7 0.5
1.4 15.9
24.6%
0% 0%
22.1% 31.9%
3.3
62.2% 33.7%
38.5%
Map 5.PopulationDensity(2010)
Map 13.PercentofPopulationwithBachelorsorMore(2010Estimate)

Racial and ethnic diversity is greater in the Greater Downtown as compared to the City as a whole Areas of poverty and lower educational attainment currently are geographically linked and often separated from areas of higher income and educational attainment
$24.6K $20.9K $20K $40K $13K $47.1K $29.3K $23.2K $15.8K $26.8K $17.1K $23.5K $17.1K $21.1K
$15.1K
15.4% 105 18.1% 189 12.6% 55 13% 131 10.5% 73 0% 0 5.1% 12 32.9% 123 25.7% 74 18.7% 86
22.5% 75 23.9% 147 31.6% 192 23.9% 103
24.3% 17
$31.5K
$26.6K
$26.6K
1.6% 28
5.2% 45
21.3% 298
$30.4K $18.2K $18.8K $24K $15.5K $125K $9.6K $15.8K $10.6K
$9.5K
7.7% 66 3.2% 47 6.8% 37 6.3% 48 4.4% 22 61.5% 64 5.3% 43 4.8% 47
14% 102
$31.6K
18.6% 341
24% 118
$11.3K $12.8K
0.7% 3
39.1% 404
$28.2K $13.6K
$63.5K $0K
4.2% 38 4.9% 65 3.1% 4
5.6% 11 3.4% 17
Right: Maps depicting population density, educational attainment, median household income and youth population as measures of vibrant, healthy, mixed income communities (Source: D3)
$0K $53.5K $0K $29.9K

5% 72
2.9% 1
6.5% 49
Map15.MedianHouseholdIncome(2010Estimate)
Map9.YouthPopulation(2010)
20
21
PercentofHouseholdsbyIncomeRange (2010Estimate)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
2.3% 5.4%
1.6% 2.5% 17.9%
2.4% 4.5%
1.3% 1.6% 17.1%
1.8% 2.8% 16.5%
22.3% 29.9% 12.8% 11.2% 14.4% 18.7% 11.2% 10.7% 15.3% 17.8% 78,410 57% 42.9% 30.5% 41,625 30% 12.0% 12.8%
EmployeeSalaryRange,perMonth(2008) GreaterDowntownWoodwardCorridor
18,570 13%
$15,000 $1,250or orless less $15,001 $1,251to to$40,000 $3,333 More than $40,000 More than $3,333
50%
15.3%
40% 30% 20%
10.0% 11.6%
12.4% 12.7% 38.7% 23.0%
36.3%
PercentofPopulation
Age and Education The Corridor has a higher percentage of people with Bachelors and Graduate degrees than the city as a whole. Midtown and the CBD have proportionately more college-educated residents than the Northend/New Center area. Of the population 25 and over, 26.6% of CBD residents possess a Bachelors degree, 27.1% in Midtown, and 16.5% of North End/New Center residents. Midtown also has a larger proportion of people who possess graduate degrees (15.2%) than those who solely possess a Bachelor degree (11.8%). Additionally, the Greater Downtown has a much higher percentage of 18-34 year olds (36.8%) when compared to the city as a whole (23.6%). This young college educated demographic will likely drive much of the future growth in the Greater Downtown. Income Median household income in the Greater Downtown is 60% of the City of Detroit Median Income and only 30% of the Detroit-WarrenLivonia Area Median Income. Median household income is highest within the Central Business District, at $30,935, close to the City Median Income ($31,915). Median household income within the Midtown and North End / New Center areas are roughly $10,000$15,000 less than the median household income in the CBD. 78% of Greater Downtown households earn less than $50,000 per year. The relatively low incomes of Greater Downtown residents is contrasted by the relatively high salaries of Greater Downtown employees. There are 78,410 employees in the Greater Downtown who earn annual salaries above $40,000 per year. In order to create mixed income communities within the Greater Downtown, finding ways to bridge this income disparity will be a key goal of the TOD Strategy. In addition to the Live Downtown and Live Midtown programs to incentivize Corridor employees to move to the Greater Downtown, efforts will also need to be made to encourage Hire Local programs and match or improve skills of Corridor residents to meet employment opportunities within the Greater Downtown.
10% 0%
Figure40.EmployeeSalaryRange(2008) Detroit,MI Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor Central Business District Midtown NorthEnd/ NewCenter
Source:LocalEmploymentDynamics,U.S.CensusBureau,CenterforEconomicStudies,2008; DataDrivenDetroit
Lessthan$15,000 $35,000$49,999 $150,000ormore
$15,000$24,999 $50,000$99,999
$25,000$34,999 $100,000$149,999
Figure13.PercentofHouseholdsbyIncomeRange(2010Estimate)
Sources:ESRI2010Estimate;DataDrivenDetroit
PopulationbyAgeSegment(2010)
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Detroit,MI
23.0% 26.7% 23.6% 26.7%
25.3% 25.6%
30.3% 29.6%
22.0% 23.1%
28.1% 27.8% 25.2% 18.9%

NorthEnd/NewCenter
55andolder 35to54
36.8% 12.4%
43.2% 35.2% 4.9% 11.8%

Midtown
18to34 Under18
GreaterDowntownWoodwardCorridor CentralBusinessDistrict
Figure5.PopulationbyAgeSegments(2010)
Sources:U.S.CensusBureau,Census2010SummaryFile1(SF1);DataDrivenDetroit

Figure3.RaceandEthnicity(2010)
Detroit Hispanic NonHispanic

Populationofonerace: Whitealone BlackorAfrican 1 Americanalone AmericanIndianand AlaskaNativealone Asianalone NativeHawaiianand OtherPacificIslander alone SomeOtherRace alone
GreaterDowntown WoodwardCorridor 6.8% 93.2% 91.4% 7.8% 82.2% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.1% 601 26,538 25,785 5,308 18,883 95 1,452 3 44 2.2% 97.8% 95.0% 19.6% 69.6% 0.4% 5.4% 0.0% 0.2% 2.8%
CentralBusinessDistrict 167 5,120 4,975 1,399 3,337 21 212 0 6 145 3.2% 96.8% 94.1% 26.5% 63.1% 0.4% 4.0% 0.0% 0.1% 2.7%
Midtown 310 14,240 13,805 3,488 9,117 61 1,112 3 24 435 2.1% 97.9% 94.9% 24.0% 62.7% 0.4% 7.6% 0.0% 0.2% 3.0%
NorthEnd/NewCenter 124 7,178 7,005 421 6,429 13 128 0 14 173 1.7% 98.3% 95.9% 5.8% 88.0% 0.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 2.4%
48,679 665,098 652,616 55,604 586,573 1,927 7,436 82 994
Right: Income, age and race and ethnicity composite demographics for the Greater Downtown Today (Source: D3)
12,482 1.7% 753 TwoorMoreRaces Sources:U.S.CensusBureau,Census2010SummaryFile1(SF1);DataDrivenDetroit
22
23
SECOND AVE
WOODWARD (M-1
M-10
NEW CENTER/ NORTHEND

POPULATION = 7,302 HH POPULATION W / IN 1/4 MILE OF TRANSIT [ 473 PEOPLE ]
6.5%
GRAND
SECOND AVE.
Greater Downtown Today - Residents

Central Business District The Central Business District residential population is dense, but lacks contiguous walkable density between blocks and buildings. Density in the CBD is achieved through high-density residential towers. Because density exists in towers rather than contiguous blocks, the blocks between residential towers are often vacant and lack a vibrant streetlife. Despite this there is an abundance of historic buildings and prime sites for new construction adjacent to public space that could be used to create more contiguous areas of density and improve streetlife and walkability. Residential development in the CBD should be focused within a 1/4 mile of Woodward and build off of adjacent successes in order to achieve contiguous areas of density. Midtown Midtown currently has the largest population and highest density of residents in the Greater Downtown. Because of this, it also has many of its most coherent and identifiable neighborhoods which include Brush Park, Midtown and Art Center. Midtown has built out close to 5,000 units of housing in the last ten years and with institutional partnerships with the DMC and WSU in such programs as Live Midtown has the potential for additional growth. The challenge that Midtown faces is one of capacity. New development in Midtown should focus first on reuse of vacant historic structures (which are becoming more scarce as development continues) and then look to new construction infill to reinforce neighborhoods and create a contiguous street wall to improve walkability. WSU and DMC can help build existing residential neighborhoods by integrating student or medical resident housing into existing neighborhoods rather than locating them on campuses. New Center The core residential population in New Center lives in New Center Commons, just north of West Grand Boulevard. This neighborhood Summary
27,139 Corridor Residents Woodward Corridor population density compares favorably with peer cities: Woodward Corridor gross density: 4.3 households/ acre Central Corridor, Twin Cities, MN gross density: 4.4 households/acre
The corridor has potential for walkable neighborhoods - nearly all 27,000 residents live within 1/2 mile of transit
BRUSH STREET
CASS AVE.
I-75
NEW CENTER COMMONS
NORTH END
OAKLAND
I-94
ARTS CENTER
JOHN R STREET
FERRY
KEY
WARREN
RESIDENTS
WARREN
Mixed Income Residential

FOREST
Low-Mod. Income Residential

MIDTOWN
CANFIELD
MIDTOWN
POPULATION = 14,550
HH POPULATION W / IN 1/4 MILE OF TRANSIT [ 6,079 PEOPLE ]
41.8%
ALEXANDRINE
ND RA G VER RI
However... The majority of corridor residents live outside 1/4 mile of transit Ongoing residential development momentum in Midtown 4,500 WSU students of the 33,000 enrolled currently live in the Corridor - potential for growth
BRUSH STREET
MLK
MACK
TEMPLE
BRUSH PARK
WILKINS
I-75
TIO T
RA
CBD
POPULATION = 5,287
MI
CH
IG
AN
DEQUINDRE CUT - PHASE ONE
76.1%
HH POPULATION W / IN 1/4 MILE OF TRANSIT [ 4,023 PEOPLE ]
FORT
JEFFERSON
RIVERWALK - PHASE TWO
DETROIT RIV
ER
RIVERWALK - PHA
SE ONE
24
DEQUINDRE CUT - PHASE TWO
25
WOODWARD (M-1
THIRD STREET
EUCLID
ROSA PARKS
VIRGINA PARK
2 3
3
SEWARD
3 3 2 2 3
3 4
CLAY
NEW CENTER
Only contiguous neighborhood of single family houses in downtown
DELAWARE
4 2
BETHUNE
LOTHROP
GRAND
2
MILWAUKEE BALTIMORE
New Center/ Northend Pop.: 7,302

Households: 3,714
is a mix of detached single family homes, townhouses, and higher density apartment buildings, many of which are historic structures dating back to the 1920s, particularly on Seward. There is a high percentage of low-to-moderate income subsidized housing as well as senior housing mixed throughout New Center Commons. Recent residential development efforts have focused on conversion of historic structures to lofts at TechTown. Because New Center has historically had a commercial focus, there is very little street activity after business hours. New residential development should strive to create a mixed use district with greater 24-hour activity, particularly on West Grand Boulevard between Woodward and Henry Ford Hospital. Additional opportunity for residential density exists in TechTown where there is an abundance of historic structures and surface parking lots that could be developed as a mixed use district. Finally, Seward over the last several years has emerged as an area of concern with growing crime, vacancy and blight. The street has great historic character and redevelopment efforts should be made to stabilize the area and promote mixed-income development.
2
AMSTERDAM
PIQUETTE
I-75
PALLISTER
PALLISTER
OAKLAND
RESIDENTS
M-10 - Lodge
BEAUBIEN STREET
SECOND AVE.
JOHN R STREET
BRUSH STREET
BURROUGHS
2 3
I-94
HARPER MEDBURY
YORK
ANTOINETTE
HENDRIE
2 4 1 1 1 2 1
NUMBER OF UNITS
Majority of existing residential outside of 1/4 mile of Woodward
PALMER
3 4 4
KIRBY FERRY
PALMER
I-94
4
2
FERRY
KIRBY
1 3 4 2 3 4
1-9 Units 10-49 Units 50-99 Units 100+ Units
WSU Dorms: 1,661 Beds

WARREN
4 4 4 3
PUTNAM FARNSWORTH
FREDERICK DOUGL
KIRBY ASS
FARNSWORTH
4
HANCOCK
ST. ANTOINE
MIDTOWN
Good mix of housing types and income diversity
Midtown Pop.: 14,550

Households: 7,329
1
3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1
THIRD
SELDEN
FOREST
2 1
HANCOCK
RENTALS (MEDIAN RENTAL COST PER MONTH)
FOREST
Less than $600 or Subsidized

4
$601-800 $801-1,000 $1,000+
GARFIELD
2 1
CANFIELD
1 1 1 2
2 2
Owner occupied condo/townhouse Detached single family/townhouse
2 2 2
WILLIS
GR AN D RI VE R
ALEXANDRINE
SELDEN
Student
2 2 3 2 2 2
PARSONS
BRAINARD
MLK
DAVENPORT
3 3
3
ELLIOT
ELIOT
MACK Sources: Population statistics: D3; Rental information: UCCA, New Center Council, HAA
STIMSON
PETERBORO
4
CHARLOTTE
PETERBORO
2 1 2 2 2 3
ERSKINE
4
WATSON WILKINS
WATSON
CHARLOTTE
EDMUND PL
Abundance of vacant residential apartments for reuse

I-75
BREWSTER
ST. ANTOINE
TEMPLE
TEMPLE ALFRED SPROAT ADELAIDE SIBLEY HENRY
ALFRED
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
LEDYARD
GR
AT
IO
PARK AVE
FOURTH SECOND
COLUMBIA
4
WINDER
4
MONTCALM
MONTCALM
MIC
HIG
PLUM
COLUMBIA
ELIZABETH
CLIFFORD
AN
THIRD
ELIZABETH
ADAMS
3
R HN
CBD
Residential housing is scattered in dense highrise towers
OLD
NB
4
WA
4
TO ING SH
LVD
BAGLEY
3
GRISW
JO
MADISON
RE
CE
NT
MULLET CLINTON MACOMB MONROE
BR
CBD Pop.: 5,287

Households: 3,352
ABBOT HOWARD LAFAYETTE
4 4
FAR MER
OA DW AY
STA
TE
4
MO NR
LAFAYETTE
WASHINGTON
FIRST
CA
SECOND
DIL
AC
4
SQ UA RE
RANDOLPH
OE
FA RM ER
FORT
GRISWOLD
FORT
CONGRESS
SHELBY
CONGRESS
LARNED
JEFFERSON
Total Population: 27,139

26
DETROIT RIV
ER
27
SECOND AVE
WOODWARD (M-1
M-10
HFHS
NEW CENTER GRAND
SECOND AVE.
Greater Downtown Today - Employees

Central Business District The Central Business District has experienced significant growth over the last ten years with the corporate relocations of Compuware, Quicken, and expansion of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Leadership from the business and philanthropic communities have also contributed to growth and relocation of small-tomedium sized businesses to the CBD. Quicken Loans CEO Dan Gilbert in conjunction with other CBD leaders has promoted the idea of Webward, an initiative to locate 21st century tech and creative offices along Woodward Avenue in conjunction with the implementation of Woodward Light Rail. Campus Martius has emerged as the hub of this effort. The CBD TOD Strategy seeks to build off of this initiative to create a dense employment core at Campus Martius and along Woodward. Despite the positive momentum, the CBD still has close to five million square feet of vacant commercial office space; part of the challenge of the TOD Strategy will be to repurpose vacant commercial office space, if future demand cannot meet capacity. Residential conversion is a possible repurposed use. The TOD Strategy also recognizes that other major employers such as GM, DTE, BCBS, and MGM exist on campuses outside of the quarter mile of Woodward and efforts must be made to create walkable connections back to Woodward Light Rail or connect employees back to the light rail through the People Mover. Midtown Midtown employment is anchored by its major institutions: the Detroit Medical Center and Wayne State University. Employment growth has the opportunity to leverage the massive economies of these two institutions. The anchor institutions can assist with job creation by encouraging medical office and supportive institutional services to locate in the Woodward Corridor. Woodward, John R and Warren present the greatest opportunity for office and ancillary services expansion that can tie into the Woodward Light Rail line. Additionally Summary
125,736 Corridor Employees Greater Downtown is still our regional job center
Many job centers within the Greater Downtown are not well connected
BRUSH STREET
CASS AVE.
NEW CENTER TOTAL EMPLOYEES: 23,111

Stable with health care and government jobs
*
TECH TOWN
I-75
NEW CENTER COMMONS
NORTH END
OAKLAND
I-94
ARTS CENTER WSU

JOHN R STREET
FERRY
KEY
WARREN
EMPLOYEES
WARREN
ALEXANDRINE
10.922 Million SF Total Class A Office [70 % occupied]* 8.152 Million SF available Class B Office [65.4 % occupied]*
Most vacant office space is within 2 blocks of Woodward
BRUSH STREET
MLK
MACK
TEMPLE
MOTOR CITY
BRUSH PARK
WILKINS
* 2009 CoStar / Grubb-Ellis source
I-75
TIO T
CBD TOTAL EMPLOYEES: 67,812
RA
MI
CH
IG
AN
MGM/ DTE JUSTICE DEQUINDRE CUT - PHASE ONE
Still represents largest concentration of Corridor employees Long term decline, but recent growth around Campus Martius
CAMPUS MARTIUS
FORT
GREEKTOWN BCBS
FINANCIAL DISTRICT
JEFFERSON
RENCEN
DETROIT RIV
ER
RIVERWALK - PHA
SE ONE
28
Webward, new economy and creative corridor initiatives are encouraging 21st century job growth
MIDTOWN TOTAL EMPLOYEES: 34,813

Showing modest growth in eds and meds
Institutional Job Center Job Center
FOREST
MIDTOWN
DMC
CANFIELD
ND RA G VER RI
29
WOODWARD (M-1
THIRD STREET
EUCLID
MIDTOWN/NEW CENTER
NEW CENTER (2.6M SF)
2
ROSA PARKS
VIRGINA PARK
SEWARD
FISHER (580K) NEW CENTER ONE (410K) KAHN (270K) LAKESHORE (225K) CADILLAC PLACE (775K)
DELAWARE CLAY
Manufacturing infrastructure remains in place for reuse
2 2 1
BETHUNE
LOTHROP
I-75
HFHS (8,502)**
PALLISTER
PALLISTER
OAKLAND
EMPLOYEES/OFFICE SPACE
M-10 - Lodge
BEAUBIEN STREET
SECOND AVE.
JOHN R STREET
BRUSH STREET
TOTAL SPACE AVAILABLE
GRAND
1-100,000 SF
2 2
100,000-500,000 SF 501,000+ SF
STATE OF MI (4,910)
MILWAUKEE BALTIMORE
Emerging industries job incubator - TechTown the Creative Corridor initiative can be leveraged to develop smallerscale creative incubator and artist spaces. The Sugar Hill district and sites south of Alexandrine hold the potential for this type of development. Though smaller-scale creative jobs do not hold the same economic potential as larger institutional job creation, they serve to reinforce the authentic character of the district and should be promoted as a core element of the districts growth. New Center Similar to the institutional anchors in Midtown, New Center employment is anchored by Henry Ford Health Systems. HFHS occupies office space in New Center One, TechTown (One Ford Place) as well as its main hospital west of the Lodge freeway. Because of HFHSs presence throughout the New Center district, they comprise the districts primary stakeholder, and their influence holds the greatest potential to grow businesses and ancillary medical services in New Center. After the departure of GM, the main commercial core centered on West Grand Boulevard and Second Avenue has largely been comprised of government, education, nonprofit and institutional office space. These uses are stable, but may need diversification to attain job growth. The Center for Creative Studies after its expansion into the Argonaut building has become an important New Center stakeholder. South of the viaduct, TechTown has also emerged a research and development hub and 21st century job creator. It has the support of Wayne State University as well as major philanthropies including Hudson-Webber and its New Economy Initiative to advocate for its growth. Former industrial sites east of Woodward also hold the potential for TechTown or institutional expansion in terms of production, distribution and communications uses.
New Center Total Employees: 23,111
AMSTERDAM
TECHTOWN
BU BUR BURROUGHS
PIQUETTE
CLASS A OFFICE - PERCENT OCCUPIED
1
YORK
I-94
HARPER MEDBURY
1 2 3 4
91-100% 76-90% 51-75% < 50%
ANTOINETTE
HENDRIE
CLASS B OFFICE - PERCENT OCCUPIED

PALMER
PALMER
1 2
CCS (450)
91-100% 76-90% 51-75% < 50% Owner Occupied Oce Government/Instutional Oce
I-94
FERRY
FERRY
3 4 1 1
WSU (5,019)
KIRBY
KIRBY DIA (350)

KIRBY ICK DOUGLASS
FREDER
PUTNAM
DPL (452)
DETROIT SCIENCE FARNSWORTH MUSEUM (120)

FARNSWORTH
WARREN
CHARLES H. WRIGHT MUSEUM (70)
ST. ANTOINE
Strong anchor institutions leverage major economies
Midtown Total Employees: 34,813

GR
THIRD
HANCOCK
HANCOCK
JOB CENTER TYPE
Commercial
FOREST FOREST
Cultural/Entertainment Institutional Parking Deck * Number reects total employees in the City of Detroit by employer. Headquarters are graphically indicated. ** Includes employees at Henry Ford Health Systems MACK
GARFIELD
CANFIELD
WILLIS
ALEXANDRINE
AN D RI VE R
SELDEN
CBD
Over 5 million SF of vacant Class A/B office space
FINANCIAL DISTRICT (6.9M SF)
2 2 3 3 3
DSO (272)
PARSONS
SELDEN
1 1
DMC (10,499)
BRAINARD
MLK
DAVENPORT
ELLIOT
STIMSON
PETERBORO
ELIOT
MOTOR CITY (2,424)
WATSON WILKINS
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE EDMUND PL
Employment statistics from 2010 Crains List of Largest Detroit Employers, Detroit Free Press Top Workplaces 2010, Employer websites, UCCA, and Social Compact Drilldown Analysis, 2007 Commercial Oce Occupancy from 4Q 2009 Costar Report
BREWSTER
ALFRED SPROAT ADELAIDE
3
LEDYARD
150 W. JEFFERSON (475K) 211 W. FORT (430K) ONE DETROIT CENTER (1,675K) DIME (350K) ONE WOODWARD (290K) GUARDIAN (650K) BUHL (375K) PENOBSCOT (775K) 333 W. FORT (130K) FORD (230K) MARQUETTE (160K) MURPHY TELEGRAPH (100K) FEDERAL BANK (100K) COLEMAN A YOUNG (700K) FEDERAL COURTHOUSE (500K)
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
SIBLEY HENRY WINDER
ST. ANTOINE
TEMPLE
TEMPLE
ALFRED
PARK AVE
FOURTH
SECOND
I-75
GR
MONTCALM
COLUMBIA
AT
IO
GRAND CIRCUS PARK (470K SF)

1 4 1 2 4
MGM GRAND DETROIT (3,000)

PLUM
FOX (150K) GRAND PARK CENTER (175K) BARDEN BUILDING (35K) PALMS (60K) MADISON BUILDING (50K)
MONTCALM
COLUMBIA
H ELIZABETH
LVD
3 3 3 3 3 4 1
JO
Many job centers are not well connected to Woodward
2 2
MIC
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS (625) DAC (278)

HN R
CLIFFORD
HIG
ELIZABETH
AN
M ADAMS
4
MADISON
TO
OLD
NB
GRISW
ING
WA
SH
D GRISWOLD
FORT
Y BY SHELB
ERNST & YOUNG (535) LAFAYETTE STRATEGIC 2 STAFFING SOULTION (685) DETROIT MEDIA PARTNERSHIP (1,460)
SECOND
WASHINGTON
FIRST
2 2
MO
NR
RANDOLPH
THIRD
DTE (3,771)
BAGLEY
MER FAR
CE
NT
RE
MULLET CLINTON MACOMB OE OE ONRO ON MONRO MO
OA BR DW AY
CAMPUS MARTIUS (3.1M SF)

4
ABBOT
STA
TE
1001 (300K) ONE KENNEDY SQUARE (250K) CHASE (420K) FIRST NATIONAL (825K) CADILLAC TOWER (340K) COMPUWARE (1,000K)
HOWARD
1
OE
GREEKTOWN CASINO (1,800)
2
FORT
BCBS (3,082)
1
LAFAYETTE
1 3 3
FA RM ER
CA
DIL
AC
SQ
UA
RE
3
CONGRESS LARNED
CONGRESS
COMPUWARE (2,597)
COMERICA (1,706)
Largest concentration of employees in the Corridor
JEFFERSON
3 1
KPMG (300)
WAYNE COUNTY (3,674)
CITY OF DETROIT (13,187)*
RENAISSANCE CENTER (5.5M SF)
CBD Total Employees: 67,812

30
CENTRAL TOWER (1,800K)
DETROIT RIV
ER
GENERAL MOTORS (4,652)

EDS (1,200) DELOITTE (954)
2
PODIUM (660K) TOWER 100 (550K) TOWER 200 (550K) TOWER 300 (550K) TOWER 400 (550K) TOWER 500 (320K)
Total Employees: 125,736 Draft for review and comment
31
SECOND AVE
WOODWARD (M-1
M-10
HFHS
GRAND
FISHER
SECOND AVE.
Greater Downtown Today - Visitors

Central Business District As a result of major entertainment-related investments, the Central Business District has seen exponential growth in its visitor population. Since 1999, there have been two new major sports stadiums, three new casinos and over 2,000 new hotel rooms built-out in the CBD. Additional pipeline development includes expansion and upgrades to the Cobo Convention Center and improvements to Hart Plaza. Because the vast majority of hotel rooms in the Greater Downtown are located in the CBD, most out-of-town visitors will be using the CBD as their base for explorations in the Greater Downtown. Additionally there are over 15,000 existing parking spaces in covered parking structures alone, not counting surface or on-street parking, which under a shared parking strategy could be used to accommodate peak regional visitor populations. Despite these major entertainment assets, there are few contiguous areas of retail amenities to support this substantial visitor population. As the central spine of the CBD, Woodward retail holds the greatest potential to capture multiple visitor event populations. Public space around Capitol Park, Grand Circus Park and Paradise Valley also holds potential to develop entertainment-oriented retail amenities. Midtown Midtown is home to the majority of Detroits cultural assets including the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, the Charles H. Wright Museum of African-American History, the Detroit Historical Museum, the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, the Masonic Temple, and cultural assets associated with Wayne State University, including the Hillberry and Bonstelle Theaters. In addition to these cultural assets, the Detroit Medical Center and Wayne State University attract hundreds of thousands of visits per year by patients and students respectively. All told visitorship in Midtown exceeds three million visits per year. However similar to the CBD there are few areas of dense visitor-oriented retail amenities. Building off of existing Summary
Downtown Detroit is a nationally competitive visitor destination 15 million visits/yr with positive growth trend Entertainment investments in the CBD have lead to exponential visitor growth in the last decade
WARREN
BRUSH STREET
CASS AVE.
I-75
NEW CENTER COMMONS
NORTH END
OAKLAND
I-94
ARTS CENTER WSU CULTURAL DISTRICT

JOHN R STREET
FERRY
KEY
WARREN
Parking Deck 5 min walk (1/4 mile)
FOREST
Year round visitor destinations Evenings and weekends Many new parking decks within 1/4 Mile of transit support visitor parking
ND RA G VER RI
MIDTOWN
DMC
CANFIELD
EMPLOYEES
Institutional Job Center

VISITORS
ALEXANDRINE
SUGAR HILL DSO

MACK
Cultural/Entertainment
Hotels
Midtown / New Center contain national assets: DIA, DSO, Masonic, Fisher
Still...no high quality, dense Main Street [Royal Oak] pedestrian environment other than Greektown
I-75
TEMPLE
MOTOR CITY
MASONIC
BRUSH STREET
4,123 hotel rooms are located in CBD = 1.5 M Room/Nights Annually (66% = 1M Room/Nights Occupied)
MLK
BRUSH PARK
WILKINS
RA
TIO
MI
CH
IG
AN
MGM
JEFFERSON
GREEKTOWN
FORT
COBO/ JOE
HART PLAZA
DETROIT RIV ER
RIVERWALK - PHA SE ONE
32
33
WOODWARD (M-1
THIRD STREET
ROSA PARKS
MIDTOWN/NEW CENTER
New Center tends to vacate evenings and weekends
EUCLID
VIRGINA PARK
SEWARD
DELAWARE CLAY
BETHUNE
LOTHROP
GRAND
FISHER (2,089) HFHS (242,984 - INPATIENT 2.12 MILLION - OUTPATIENT)

MILWAUKEE BALTIMORE
HOTEL ST. REGIS (125)
CCS -ARGONAUT
AMSTERDAM
Anchor institutions - large visitor populations - internally focused retail anchors, the Midtown TOD Strategy seeks to locate dense, amenity-rich retail nodes between stations and visitor destinations in an effort to leverage these destinations as retail catalysts. New Center The primary visitor populations in New Center are day-time visitors to the State of Michigan offices at Cadillac Place, hospital patients and visitors to Henry Ford Hospital, and student visits to the College for Creative Studies and Wayne State University/TechTown. The Fisher Theater also brings in an evening and weekend visitor population. Because New Center does not have the same volume of visitorship as the CBD or Midtown, visitor-related retail amenities must also rely on employee and resident populations for their success. Development on West Grand Boulevard should incorporate compelling retail to engage the New Center visitor population, provide hospital visitors incentive to explore the district and improve walkability on West Grand Boulevard to Woodward Light Rail. Loft development south of West Grand Boulevard should also incorporate retail to support both the New Center visitor and resident populations with uses that activate the district into the evening and weekends.
Downtown Corridor Over 15 Million Visitors per Year

I-94
PIQUETTE
I-75
PALLISTER
PALLISTER
OAKLAND
VISITORS
M-10 - Lodge
BEAUBIEN STREET
SECOND AVE.
JOHN R STREET
BRUSH STREET
BURROUGHS
I-94
HARPER MEDBURY
UNIVERSITY PREP ELEMENTARY (353)
YORK
UNIVERSITY PREP HIGH SCHOOL (515)
ANTOINETTE
HENDRIE
WSU (32,689)
PALMER
PALMER
FERRY
DETROIT HISTORICAL MUSEUM (100,000)

KIRBY KIRBY
FERRY
INN ON FERRY (40)
CCS (1,387)
UNIVERSITY PREP MIDDLE SCHOOL (357)

TYPE OF DATA
DETROIT INSTITUTE OF ARTS ORTH (540,000) FARNSW
FREDERICK DOUGL
KIRBY ASS
Hotels (Occupancy) Theaters (Capacity) Stadiums (Annual Aendance) Cultural (Annual Aendance) Institutional (Visitors) Parking deck
Internationally competitive cultural attractions
WARREN
FARNSWORTH PUTNAM DETROIT PUBLIC LIBRARY (462,141)
CHARLES H. WRIGHT MUSEUM (75,000)
DETROIT SCIENCE CENTER (430,000)

HANCOCK HANCOCK
Over 3 Million Midtown Visitors per Year

GR AN
GARFIELD
CANFIELD
MOCAD (40,000)
DMC/VA (254,237 - INPATIENT 879,411 - OUTPATIENT)
ST. ANTOINE
FOREST
FOREST
Surface parking lot
WILLIS
THIRD
CBD
Entertainment investment has brought people downtown again
DETROIT SCHOOL OF ARTS (720)

SELDEN
ALEXANDRINE
MAJESTIC (1,651)
* Visitor statistics from 2009 espn.com, wikipedia.com, travelocity.com, Detroit Public Schools, Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority, University of Detroit Mercy, DEGC, UCCA, HFHS
Nations Second Largest Theater District Behind Broadway

-DEGC.ORG
ST. ANTOINE
D RI VE R
BRAINARD
SELDEN
PARSONS
MLK
ORCHESTRA DAVENPORT HALL (2,000)

ELLIOT
STIMSON
PETERBORO
MACK
ELIOT
WATSON WILKINS
MASONIC (4,404)
TEMPLE
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE EDMUND PL
BREWSTER
ALFRED
CASS TECH LEDYARD SPRUCE (2,162)

PINE HENRY
GR
AT
IO
PARK AVE
FOURTH
SECOND
SIBLEY HENRY WINDER
I-75
Empties out after 6PM and on weekends (non-event days)
COLUMBIA
MIC
FOX (4,764)
CLIFFORD
MONTCALM COLUMBIA
H AB TH ABETH ELIZABE
MONTCALM
COMERICA PARK (2,567,185)
HIG
PLUM
AN
THIRD
ELIZABETH
FILLMORE ADAMS (2,200)
FORD FIELD (395,162)
MOT (2,700)
HN R JO
GEM (313)
4,123 Hotel Rooms in the CBD

Over 4,000 CBD hotel rooms; over 1,600 rooms since 2005
FORT
TO
OLD
BAGLEY MGM GRAND (400)
CE
NB
E MILNER (174)
OA BR DW
LVD
NT
MUSIC HALL (1,701)

CLINTON
MADISON
3,776,801 Combined Regular Season Aendance for Tigers, Lions, and Red Wings
LAFAYETTE
MULLET
MER FAR
GRISW
ING
AY
ABBOT
WESTIN BOOK STA CADILLAC (455) TE

WA SH
HILTON GARDEN MACOMB INN (198)

MONROE
HOWARD
RANDOLPH
WASHINGTON
FIRST
DOUBLETREE FORT SHELBY LAFAYETTE (204)

SECOND
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS (193)
N MO
RO
E
FA RM ER
GREEKTOWN (400)
ATHENEUM (174)
FORT
CA
DIL
AC
SQ
UA
GRISWOLD
RE
CONGRESS LARNED
SHELBY
CONGRESS
UDM LAW SCHOOL (736)
JEFFERSON
RIVERSIDE HOTEL (PONTCHARTRAIN) (367)
COURTYARD MARRIOTT (260)
JOE LOUIS ARENA (814,474)
COBO CENTER (1,500,000) DETRO
IT RIVER
MARRIOTT RENAISSANCE CENTER (1298)
34
35
SECOND AVE
RETAIL
M-10
WOODWARD (M-1
NEW CENTER SKYWAYS
HFHS
GRAND
FISHER BUILDING
NEW CENTER ONE
CADILLAC PLACE
CCS
NEW CENTER MAIN STREET
SECOND AVE.
Greater Downtown Today - Retail

Central Business District While the CBD contains a large number of regional restaurant and retail destinations, it lacks contiguous blocks of successful retail. Many CBD retail establishments are dependent upon employee and visitor populations because there is an insufficient number of CBD residents to support retail establishments. As a result, many businesses close in the evenings and weekends when there is not an event. Because of this, increasing the CBD residential population will be critical to sustaining a vibrant 24-hour retail environment. Retail on Woodward between Campus Martius and Grand Circus Park is only 26% occupied; retail throughout the CBD is only 38% occupied. Filling vacant retail must be a priority that is developed in tandem with a CBD residential development strategy. Because of its continuous historic street wall, centrality within the district and immediate proximity to Woodward Light Rail, retail sites on Woodward must be prioritized and developed with a clear and consistent retail strategy. Midtown Midtown has pockets of strong independent retail at CanfieldCass-Willis, Sugar Hill and the Park Shelton. It will be important to encourage retail growth around these burgeoning nodes and connect them back to Woodward Light Rail. The Detroit Medical Center and Wayne State University also have substantial interior-focused retail catered to patient and student populations; future institutional retail development should be encouraged in neighborhoods just off campus in order to better engage the street and encourage walkability. The size and scale of vacant storefronts at intersections on Second and Third Avenues provide a good opportunity for neighborhood-focused amenities. New Center New Center, particularly on Woodward, south of Grand Boulevard, has the character, size, scale and form to accommodate high quality Summary
Resident-oriented retail amenities are scarce and widely scattered
Major job centers are serviced by interior-focused retail Greater Downtown Detroit restaurants are regional visitor attractors
WSU DORMS
BRUSH STREET
CASS AVE.
I-75
I-94
KEY
WSU
DPL
PARK SHELTON
JOHN R STREET
FERRY
DESTINATION NODE DESTINATION NODE NEIGHBORHOOD NODE

SERVICE NODE NEIGHBORHOOD NODE
DIA
WARREN
WARREN
SERVICE NODE Establishment Type by Rider Group

Resident Oriented Employee Oriented
FOREST
JOHN D DINGELL VA MEDICAL CENTER
Establishment Type byOriented Rider Group Visitor Resident Oriented Fast Food, Pawn Shop)
Undesirable (Liquor Store,
No national chain destination retail Only 24% of Woodward has active retail
ND RA G VER RI
CANFIELD-WILLIS
DETROIT RECEIVING HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY
CANFIELD
Employee Oriented Visitor Oriented Undesirable (Liquor Store, Fast Food, Pawn Shop)
ALEXANDRINE
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF MICHIGAN
DMC
DSO
HARPER HOSPITAL/ HUTZEL WOMENS HOSPITAL
CBD Positive restaurant, bars, and retail growth around Campus Martius & Entertainment District
I-75
MOTOR CITY
CHARLOTTE-PETERBORO
BRUSH STREET
Midtown/New Center Small, independent restaurants & retail
MLK
MACK
WILKINS
TEMPLE
EASTERN MARKET
PARK AVENUE
MI CH IG
MGM GRAND
COMERICA PARK
GR
FORD FIELD
AT
IO
AN
PARADISE VALLEY
FINANCIAL DISTRICT
DIME BUILDING PENOBSCOT BUILDING
GREEKTOWN
FORD BUILDING
CAMPUS MARTIUS
FORT
MILLENDER CENTER
BUHL BUILDING
COBO JOE LOUIS ARENA

JEFFERSON
GUARDIAN BUILDING
RENAISSANCE CENTER
DETROIT RIV
ER
RIVERWALK - PHA
SE ONE
36
37
RETAIL
NEW CENTER ONE BUILDING
5 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 3 5 3 6 15 5 1 1 5 15 5 4 5 55 55 155 3 51 2 4 1 1 51 3
FISHER BUILDING
5 5 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
CADILLAC PLACE
5 1 5 1 1 1 1
MIDTOWN/NEW CENTER
Difficult to sustain neighborhood retail after business hours neighborhood retail. The traditional Main Street feel of this area compares favorably to downtown Ferndale and Royal Oak. These stores currently suffer from a high-rate of vacancy, an unclear identity and are in need of facade improvements all of which need to be addressed as part of the TOD Strategy. Retail along West Grand Boulevard could also be improved. While the Fisher Building, Cadillac Place and New Center One have compelling retail, all of the retail establishments have interior-oriented main entrances. The skywalks connecting the buildings further reinforce the separation from the street. Opening retail outwards will help create a better pedestrian experience. New development along West Grand Boulevard should incorporate ground floor retail to create a contiguous street wall interrupted only by quality public space in order to create a walkable connection between Henry Ford Hospital and Woodward Light Rail.
1 3
5 2
5 4
2 1 2 3 1 2 2 54 2 3 11 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 3
3 5 1
BROOKINGS INSTITUTE RETAIL CATEGORIES
41 1
Electronics and Appliances Furniture and home furnishings Building Materials and Garden 4 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, Music Stores 5 Clothing and Accessories 6 Food and Beverage
1 2 3
NON-RESTAURANT SERVICES
Quality independent retail and neighborhood amenities
1 4 6 11 423 111 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 11 1 1 5 66 54 5 1 2 4 1 1
1 2 3 4 5
Banks Copy/print shops Mechanics/Auto Sales Gas Stations Hair Salons Gift shops Pawn Shops Laundromats Convenience Stores Thirft Stores Dollar Stores
11 61 2 1
ADDITIONAL RETAIL
1 1 2 3 4 5
4 5 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1
1 6
RESTAURANTS AND BARS
1 1 16 1 1
1 2
Restaurants Bars
PRIMARY BUILDING USAGES
Residential Commercial Cultural/Entertainment Institutional Mixed Use Parking Structure
CBD
Retail is scattered; lacks contiguous areas of amenities
1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1
JOHN D DINGELL VA MEDICAL CENTER

1 1 1
DETROIT RECEIVING HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY

1 1 6
3 3 3
3 1
1 2 4 1 5
CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF MICHIGAN

1 1 1 6 6 6 6
5 2
HARPER HOSPITAL/ HUTZEL WOMENS HOSPITAL

1 1 1 1
4 4 3 3 2
3 2 2 5 3 1 2 2 2 21 211
6 6 66
MGM GRAND
6 1 1 2 2 41 1 2 1 55 52 2 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 2 5 1 1 5 5 2 2
Lacks critical mass of residents to support retail
1 2 1 1
DIME BUILDING
3 1 5 1
FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING

1 5 4 2 3 1 5
PENOBSCOT BUILDING
5 5 5 5 1 1 3 3 5 1 5 1 1 5
1 5 55 5 5 5 1 3 3 11 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 1
5 1
MILLENDER CENTER
1 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 5
1 5
FORD BUILDING
2 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 22 1 2 355 2 5 3 2 1 11 1
BUHL BUILDING
3 1 5 1 1
6 1 51 1 1
31 5
15
1 5 1111111 5 2 113411 2 2 5 4 1111 12 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 21 2 1 1 31 1 2 2
RENAISSANCE CENTER
1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
GUARDIAN BUILDING
1 1 3 1 3 2
1 21 21
1 3 1 22
The right bones for high quality destination retail
38
39
SECOND AVE
RESIDENTIAL = $120.7 MILLION INSTITUTIONAL = $503.8 MILLION COMMERCIAL = $58.0 MILLION

GRAND
HFHS
Greater Downtown Today - Recent Development

Central Business District Over the last decade, development in the CBD has been focused primarily on commercial office ($1.0B) and entertainment-related ($2.1B) investment. Commercial office investment at the Renaissance Center and around Campus Martius have assisted major corporate office relocations to the CBD including GM, BCBS, Compuware, and Quicken, directly bringing well over 14,000 jobs to the CBD. Entertainment-related investments in three downtown casinos and their associated hotels as well as two major sports stadiums have been responsible for bringing millions of visitors to the CBD and have provided a boast to the downtowns image hosting major national events such as Super Bowl XL and the Final Four. By comparison, there has been relatively less investment in residential and commercial retail, and because of this, the CBD meets peak population during employment and event hours, but empties out when the large employee and visitor populations leave. The next wave of CBD investment should focus more on residential and retail development to encourage a 24-hour district; this next wave of development has already begun with pipeline development at the Broderick Tower, Whitney Building and Capitol Park. Midtown Midtown has also seen large investment by its institutions, Wayne State University, the Detroit Medical Center, Detroit Institute of Arts and Detroit Symphony Orchestra (over $1.0B invested; another $1.0B committed), that have strengthened the employment and visitor base of the district, but Midtown has also seen major investment in residential development ($530M) that has resulted in the creation of over 4,000 new housing units. Midtowns balanced approach to development investment has helped increase the residential population and created a residential base for the creation of vibrant cohesive neighborhoods. The next step in Midtown development will be to focus investment to create higher densities of residential and retail amenities in tandem with committed institutional investment. Summary
$5 billion invested in last 10 years
TECHTOWN Emerging industries
SECOND AVE.
BRUSH STREET
CASS AVE.
I-75
NEW CENTER
M-10
RECENT DEVELOPMENT
WOODWARD (M-1
I-94
FERRY
Majority of investment in large scale projects: entertainment & commercial Midtown / New Center development anchored by investments of major institutions (DMC, WSU, HFHS) - Job Generators Residential development focused on incremental fine-grained development New development has continued in the Greater Downtown despite a weak regional & national economy
WSU
MIDTOWN
RESIDENTIAL = $390.9 MILLION INSTITUTIONAL = $792.2 MILLION COMMERCIAL = $7.5 MILLION
ALEXANDRINE
WARREN
JOHN R STREET
(JOB CENTERS) HFHS/WSU/DMC: $1.3 billion HFHS/WSU/DMC: another $1.3 billion commied
LARGE-SCALE INSTITUTIONAL
WARREN
FOREST
CANFIELD
INCREMENTAL FINE-GRAIN ADAPTIVE REUSE

(RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES)
DMC
BRUSH STREET
MACK
MOTOR CITY
TEMPLE
WILKINS
I-75
COMERICA PARK
CBD
RESIDENTIAL = $60 MILLION INSTITUTIONAL = $383.8 MILLION COMMERCIAL = $1,015 MILLION ENTERTAINMENT = $2,105 MILLION
MI
MGM
CH IG AN
FORD FIELD BOOK CADILLAC COMPUWARE GREEKTOWN CASINO
RA
TIO
CAMPUS MARTIUS Commercial oce hub

FORT
$3.2 billion invested within 1/4 mile radius of Woodward $5.08 billion invested in M-1 corridor project area
DETROIT RIV
**
ER
(VISITOR DESTINATIONS) Sports venues/casinos/parks: $2.1 billion
LARGE-SCALE ENTERTAINMENTDRIVEN INVESTMENT
JEFFERSON
COMMERCIAL-OFFICE INVESTMENT
RenCen/Riverfront/Compuware: $1.01 billion
RENAISSANCE CENTER/ RIVERFRONT
40
41
WOODWARD (M-1
SECOND AVE.
THIRD STREET
ROSA PARKS
Crime and blight threaten stability of residential neighborhoods
EUCLID
VIRGINA PARK
GRAMONT MANOR
SEWARD
DELAWARE
HFHS
UPTOWN ROW
BETHUNE
LOTHROP
YOUTHVILLE ST. REGIS
GRAND
NEW CENTER PARK

MILWAUKEE BALTIMORE
Argonaut Building as catalyst for a more active district
New Center
Residential: $120.7 million Institutional: $503.8 million Commercial: $58.0 million Total: $682.5 million
ARGONAUT PIQUETTE SQUARE

PIQUETTE
NEW AMSTERDAM UNIVERSITY PREP ACADEMY NEXTENERGY

YORK AMSTERDAM
BURROUG ONE HS
GRAPHIC TECH ARTS LOFTS WSU POLICE
I-75
PALLISTER
PALLISTER
LOFTS AT NEW CENTER
OAKLAND
CLAY
RECENT DEVELOPMENT
M-10 - Lodge
BRUSH STREET
NEW CENTER
BEAUBIEN STREET
JOHN R STREET
I-94
HARPER
GENESIS VILLAS
UNIVERSITY ANTOINETTE UNIVERSITY PREP ELEMENTARY PREP HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL
MEDBURY
WOODWARD AVE STREETSCAPE PHASE 3
New Center New Centers recent development mirrors that of Midtown in terms of balance between institutional and residential investment, but at a smaller scale. New Centers major institutional investments have come primarily from Henry Ford Health Systems campus development as well as the Center for Creative Studies investment in the Argonaut Building. HFHS plans for future campus expansion will continue to drive investment in the district in the coming decade. New Center residential development over the last decade has also provided a mix of over 500 new market rate and lowto-moderate income housing units to the district. The challenge for both institutional and residential future development will be to focus investment to have the greatest impact creating a stronger district. Institutional investment must engage West Grand Boulevard sites that connect back to Woodward Light Rail to be impactful. Similarly residential investment must be focused to create much higher contiguous areas of density that can support associated neighborhood-oriented commercial retail development.
HENDRIE
PALMER COURT
TRANSIT
PALMER
PALMER
People Mover Route People Mover stop

CONSTRUCTION
MIDTOWN
Support of anchor institutions and foundations
WOODWARD AVE STREETSCAPE PHASE 2 & 4
I-94
TOWERS RESIDENTIAL SUITES GHAFARI/ ATCHISON HALLS
MCGREGOR RENO HARRIS REC CENTER
FERRY
INN ON FERRY FERRY STREET PARK SHELTON

FREDERICK DOUGL
KIRBY ASS
KIRBY
KIRBY
DIA
Renovation
UNIVERSITY PREP MIDDLE SCHOOL
New Construction Expansion

USE
CHEMISTRY BUILDING RENOVATION

PUTNAM
FARNSWORTH FARNSWORTH
Midtown
Residential: $390.9 million Institutional: $792.2 million Commercial: $7.5 million Total: $1.19 billion
GR AN
WARREN
DETROIT SCIENCE CENTER EXPANSION
WSU WELCOME CENTER HANCOCK SQUAREHANCOCK STUDIO ONE APARTMENTS FOREST 9 ON 3RD TOWNLOFTS
Residential Institutional Entertainment/Recreation Commercial/Oce

ST. ANTOINE
HANCOCK
COMPLEX FOREST
FOREST ART 71 GARFIELD LOFTS
Public Space
D GARFIELD GARFIEL
MOCAD
WOODWARD AVE STREETSCAPE PHASE 1
CANFIELD LOFTS WILLYS OVERLAND LOFTS
LOFTS AT 55 W. CANFIELD CANFIELD STUBER-STONE LOFTS

WILLIS
MID-MED LOFTS
* Development data from modeldmedia.com, New Center Council, UCCA, and DEGC.
DETROIT RECEIVING RENO
SPRINGFIELD LOFTS CHILDRENS ALEXANDRINE CENTER

THIRD
SELDEN
D RI VE R
Opportunity to build upon many recent successes
MLK
DMC OUTPATIENT CENTER MUSIC WSU CENTER PHARMACY BRAINARD ST ELLINGTON SCHOOL DAVENPORT APTS LOFTS MACK @ PEOPLE UNITED BRUSH CHESTERFIELD ELIOT AS ONE APTS. APTS N STIMSO ARCADIA BONSTELLE BUILDING APTS
BRAINARD
SCHOOL OF ARTS
SELDEN
KARMANOS CANCER INSTITUTE
NS PARSO FISHER
MAX M.
HOSPICE OF MICHIGAN
ELLIOT
MACK
PETERBORO
ERSKINE
PETERBORO
CHARLOTTE
CRYSTAL LOFTS WATSON CAROLA CARLTON EDMUND PL
WATSON
CHARLOTTE
BRUSH PARK MANOR WILKINS

BREWSTER
ST. ANTOINE
TEMPLE
TEMPLE
MOTOR CITY
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
LEDYARD
SPROAT
WOODWARD PLACE
ALFRED
ALFRED
ADELAIDE
GR
AT
IO
PARK AVE
FOURTH
CASS TECH
SECOND
SIBLEY HENRY
I-75
WINDER
TOD-friendly land control critical to future development

MIC HIG AN
GARDEN LOFTS COMERICA PARK FORD FIELD
MGM GRAND DETROIT

PLUM
MONTCALM
COLUMBIA
MONTCALM
COLUMBIA
ELIZABETH
CLIFFORD
ELIZABETH
CHELIS
DTE
ADAMS
PE
AS ING HIN G TO N TO BV STN REL ETD S
OLD
CBD
CA
BAGLEY
JO
HN
CE GARAGE NT RE
THIRD
KALES OPERA HOUSE

MADISON
CBD
Many recent infrastructure improvements projects
WASHINGTON
Residential: $60.0 million Institutional: $383.8 million Commercial: $1,015 million Entertainment: $2,105 million Total: $3.56 billion
FORT
GRISW
YMCA
MERCHANTS ROW
BR OA DW
MER FAR
B AY
HILTON GARDEN N INN CLINTO

MACOMB MONROE
MULLET
O RS
E W E D R A T
GREEKTOWN CASINO
Y TS A
CA PE
WA
ABBOT
ROSA PARKS TRANSIT CENTER
SH
STA
TE
HOWARD LAFAYETTE
BOOK CADILLAC
N COMPUWARE MO
R FA M ER
LAFAYETTE
FIRST
SECOND
DOUBLETREE FORT SHELBY
1 KENNEDY SQUARE
CA
CAMPUS DIL MARTIUS A PARKC SQU
RANDOLPH
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS
RO
FORT
GRISWOLD
VINTON
AR
CONGRESS LARNED
PONTCHARTRAIN
SHELBY
CONGRESS
JEFFERSON
MARRIOTT DETROIT PORT AUTHORITY
RENAISSANCE CENTER
Total investment: $5.39 billion
DETROIT RIV
ER
DETROIT RIVERWALK
42
43
WOODWARD (M-1
THIRD STREET
EUCLID
ROSA PARKS
VIRGINA PARK
MELBOURNE MT VERNON MARSTON
2.07
SEWARD
DELAWARE PALLISTER 1.02
CHANDLER
SMITH
1.69
BETHUNE BETHUNE CUSTER LOTHROP HORTON
GRAND
2
0.58
MILWAUKEE BALTIMORE
AMSTERDAM
PIQUETTE
I-75
PALLISTER
2.18
OAKLAND
CLAY
PARKS AND PUBLIC SPACES
M-10 - Lodge
BEAUBIEN STREET
JOHN R STREET
SECOND AVE.
BRUSH STREET
PARK AND OPEN SPACE CLASSIFICATION
Greater Downtown Today - Public Space

Central Business District The Central Business District has several major historic public spaces that have seen recent improvements (Campus Martius, Capitol Park, Paradise Valley) or are planned for improvements (Hart Plaza). Many of these spaces have active programming to engage visitors (Campus Martius, Paradise Valley). Additionally major CBD employers have incorporated greenspace into the design of their campuses (DTE, MGM, BCBS), though most of these spaces are for the use of their employees only and not open to the public. Public spaces, particularly those on or adjacent to Woodward (Hart Plaza, Campus Martius, Capitol Park, Paradise Valley, Grand Circus Park) will be a major catalysts for development with the implementation of Woodward Light Rail. Continued improvements to these public spaces and ensuring active use by the public through programming will offer critical stimulus for development. Midtown Midtown has recently made major public space investments in the Josephine Ford Sculpture Garden at CCS, the Midtown Loop, and Peck Park. It has also had more organic and finer-grain public space creation in a number of community gardens (North Cass Community Garden among others) and alley improvements (Green Alley). The Detroit Medical Center and Wayne State University have incorporated public space onto their campuses at the DMC Brush Mall and Gullen Mall respectively. There are also major City of Detroit playfields at I-75/Mack and M-10/MLK (Tolan and Wigle). In the Lower Cass neighborhood, Cass Park anchors the surrounding Masonic Temple, former Kresge Headquarters building and Cass Tech High School. While Midtown has a diverse range of public spaces, its challenge will be to find the right mix of maintenance and programming of these spaces to maximize community benefit and stimulate development. Additionally smaller-scale public spaces incorporated into future development should help to accelerate spin-off development.
I-94
BURROUGHS
I-94
HARPER MEDBURY
State Detroit Quasi Public Private Owned/Public Space
YORK
ANTOINETTE
HENDRIE
School
0.37
PALMER
PALMER
FERRY
FERRY
PARK NAMES
KIRBY KIRBY
KIRBY
3.32 3.67
2.34
FREDERICK DOUGL ASS
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Delores Benne Park New Center Park Peck Park Gareld Playground Forest Park Tolan Playeld Stone Memorial Pool The Childrens Center Park West Willis #1
17.47 6.08 3.63

PUTNAM FARNSWORTH
FARNSWORTH
1.69
1.89
WARREN
0.42
HANCOCK
HANCOCK
6. 4
ST. ANTOINE
7.
4.49
2.67
1.90
FOREST
FOREST
1.55
8. 9.
GARFIELD
10. West Willis #2

CANFIELD
0.14
10
0.31
15.92
WILLIS
11. Robert Redmond Memorial Park 12. Davenport Park 13. Brainard Park
THIRD
4.06
LEDYARD
18
ALFRED SPROAT
ST. ANTOINE
GR AN D RI VE R
11
SELDEN
0.16
ALEXANDRINE
0.30
SELDEN
6
16.93 4.24
14. Wigle Memorial Playground 15. Brewster Park 16. John R. - Watson Park MACK 17. Brush-Adelaide Park 18. Cass Park 19. 4th-Charloe Park 20. Dequindre Cut
9.95
14
0.10
BRAINARD
13
0.53
PARSONS
MLK
DAVENPORT
0.53 12
ELLIOT
STIMSON ELIOT
PETERBORO
ERSKINE PETERBORO
19
0.33
16
WATSON
WATSON WILKINS
21. Lafayee Plaisance 22. Paradise Valley Park 23. Grand Circus Park 24. Capital Park
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE
0.65
EDMUND PL
BREWSTER
TEMPLE
TEMPLE
6.52
ALFRED
15
PARK AVE
FOURTH
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
3.00
ADELAIDE
0.52
SIBLEY HENRY
0.57
I-75
WINDER
17
GR
TIO
25. Campus Maritus Park 26. Cadillac Square Park 27. William G. Milliken State Park 28. Detroit International Riverfront
SECOND
COLUMBIA
MONTCALM
MONTCALM
29. Hart Plaza 30. Murphy Play Lot 31. Dean Savage Memorial Park
MIC
HIG
PLUM
COLUMBIA
ELIZABETH
CLIFFORD
AN
THIRD
ELIZABETH
ADAMS
2.56 4.42
LVD
BAGLEY
23
2.40
HN R
CE NT
MADISON
22
RE
JO
OLD
NB
0.33
MULLET
BR OA
GRISW
WA
31
1.99
0.50
ABBOT
STA
TE
1.63
24
15.95
ING
30
TO
14.59
20
FAR MER
DW AY
SH
HOWARD LAFAYETTE
1.24
WASHINGTON FIRST
N MO
SECOND
GRISWOLD
FORT
AD 0.7 ILA CS 7 UA 0Q .6 2RE
26
RANDOLPH
25
RO
E
FA RM ER
21
6.49
FORT
LAFAYETTE
2.18
CONGRESS LARNED
SHELBY
CONGRESS
JEFFERSON
29 28 5.50
14.50
DETROIT RIV
ER
28 9.95
27 26.41
44
45
Fourth & Charlotte
BCBS Campus
Brainard Park
Brewster Wheeler
Brush Mall
Brush-Adelaide Park
Capitol Park
Cass Park
New Center The well-programmed and maintained New Center Park on West Grand Boulevard was an important recent addition to public space in New Center which had previously lacked for civic spaces. Additionally New Center has significant neighborhood parks at New Center Commons and Delores Bennet Park in the North End which could be improved by better maintenance and programming. There are many opportunities throughout New Center for additional public space to act as both a community benefit and provide a catalyst for development. Development on West Grand Boulevard should strive to both build to the right-of-way and provide quality public space. The siting of both Cadillac Place and New Center One work well to do both. In anticipation of development, short-term greening of vacant and surface parking lots between Henry Ford Hospital and Woodward Avenue will greatly improve walkability along West Grand Boulevard. TechTown currently lacks a major public space. Development of the State of Michigan-owned site south of the rail viaduct on Woodward or adjacent sites provides the opportunity for much-needed public space on Woodward. Also development of the large surface parking lots in TechTown should incorporate public space as a key component of their design.
Charles H. Wright Museum Lawn
Wick Park
Delores Bennet Park
DPL Lawn
DIA Lawn
DTE Garden
Golightly Elementary
Grand Circus Park
John R.-Watson Park
New Center Park
New Center Commons
Buck Park - Paradise Valley
Peck Park
Rackham Lawn
Redmond Park
Stone Memorial Pool
Childrens Center
Tolan Playfield
Virginia Park
West Willis #1
West Willis #2
Wigle Memorial Playground
WSU Gullen Mall
WSU Welcome Center
46
47
SECOND AVE
WOODWARD (M-1
M-10
53
GRAND
AMTRAK
SECON ND AV AVE. VE V
BRUSH STREET
CASS AVE V .
I-75
Greater Downtown Today - Transit

Central Business District The Central Business District is the origin and termination for most DDOT and SMART bus routes and home to the Rosa Parks Transit Center. Eleven DDOT routes currently run on Woodward in the CBD; four routes cross Woodward. Three DDOT routes currently run through Capitol Park. With the implementation of Woodward Light Rail terminating at the Rosa Parks Transit Center as its primary transfer point, there is the opportunity for fewer routes to be run directly on Woodward, relieving bus congestion and pollution on a primary walking street designated for outdoor cafes and dining. The Detroit People Mover loop services many destinations and job centers outside of a quarter-mile of light rail transit including the Renaissance Center, DTE, MGM, Greektown, and BCBS. DPM/WLR transfer points at Grand Circus Park and Financial District will be critical intermodal connections to outlying destinations. As the highway system is still the primary means for entering the CBD, locating parking decks adjacent to service drives and light rail stations, particularly at Montcalm, will be critical to increased light rail ridership within the Greater Downtown. Midtown There is one major crosstown DDOT bus route (14) in Midtown at Warren. The Mack (31) and Tireman (14) routes also converge at Woodward and MLK/Mack before running down Woodward to the Rosa Parks Transit Center. Wayne State University and the Detroit Medical Center operate several parking decks on their campuses to accommodate commuters and visitors. They also run bus shuttle service through their campuses and adjacent neighborhoods. Both Midtown and New Center have undertaken extensive nonmotorized planning and will be implementing bike lanes, pedestrian improvements and two-way traffic conversion with forthcoming streetscape improvements. A major challenge for Midtown will be to mitigate institutional parking demand with an improved pedestrian environment. Locating parking decks away from priority walking streets and developing shared parking will be critical components to parking demand mitigation. Summary
Most visitors arrive by car - bus transit not highly utilized by visitors Employee & visitor trips are primarily by car between destination CBD is the origin & termination for most DDOT and SMART Bus Routes Only 2 major DDOT crosstown bus routes in Greater Downtown corridor
ND RA G VER RI
I-94
KEY
FERRY
JOHN R STREET
Destination Epicenter Parking Deck Surface Parking
WARREN
14
WARREN
Highway Circulation East-West Bus Route Primary Bus Route Existing Rail Detroit People Mover Shule Routes
FOREST
CANFIELD
ALEXANDRINE
Regional commuter rail intermodal is located at Amtrak Station Detroit People Mover highly utilized for events
I-75
TEMPLE
BRUSH STREET
Multiple DDOT bus routes run parallel or cross Woodward prior to terminating at RPTC
MLK
47
31
MACK
WILKINS
RA
TIO
MI
CH
IG
AN
RPTC
FORT
JEFFERSON
DETROIT RIV
ER
RIVERWALK - PHA
SE ONE
48
49
WOODWARD (M-1
THIRD STREET
EUCLID
ROSA PARKS
VIRGINA PARK
SEWARD
851
PALLISTER
DELAWARE CLAY
BETHUNE
LOTHROP
GRAND
23
EE MILWAUKEE RE BALTIMORE
Amtrak
AMSTERDA AM M
PIQUETTE
I-75
PALLISTER
OAKLAND
TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
M-10 - Lodge
BEAUBIEN STREET
SECOND AVE.
JOHN R STREET
BRUSH STREET
BURROUGHS
I-94
HARPER
YORK
NEW CENTER
New Center Because of its location at the intersection of major commuter rail, light rail and highway infrastructure, New Center is the gateway to Greater Downtown Detroit. In addition to transportation, this confluence of infrastructure makes it a key node for production and distribution. As the gateway to the Greater Downtown, all connections by rail and road to New Center destinations and Woodward Light Rail should reflect the positive image of the City. Within the district, Henry Ford Health System operates bus shuttle service to connect its medical and administrative offices with commuter parking. The use of shuttle service and Woodward Light Rail provide the opportunity to locate parking away from priority walking streets to improve the pedestrian experience. The development of an intermodal transfer point at the Amtrak station will provide a major catalyst for surrounding development and should be coordinated with TOD planning to ensure e ure maximum benefit. Railroad viaduct and Lodge freeway disconnect key assets
I-94
MEDBURY
ANTOINETTE ET ETT
HENDRIE
23
PALMER
PALMER
FERRY
TRANSIT
FERRY
851
Y KIRBY KIRBY
F FREDERICK DOUGL
KIRBY ASS
5 min walk (1/4 mile) People Mover Route People Mover stop Greenway Links (Non-motorized) Commuter Rail
14 # 40 #
FARNSWORTH PUTNAM FARNSWORTH
WARREN
H HANCOCK HANCOCK
DDOT Bus Route DDOT Crosstown Bus Route DDOT Bus Stop SMART Bus Route SMART Bus Stop TUNNEL Bus Route TUNNEL Bus Stop SPECIAL EVENTS Bus Stop ROSA PARKS Transit Center HENRY FORD Shule Route WAYNE STATE Shule Route DMC Shule Route
36
ST. ANTOINE
FOREST
FOREST
GARFIELD
Regional intermodal node at Amtrak station; city gateway
38 23
CANFIELD
WILLIS
851
THIRD
18
GR AN D
29 47
ALEXANDRINE
RI VE R
SELDEN
SELDEN
PARSONS
BRAINARD
MLK
DAVENPORT
MACK
ELLIOT
ELIOT
31
STIMSON
CBD/MIDTOWN
Woodward currently divides; does not unify downtown
21
PETERBORO
450 16
PETERBORO
ERSKINE
460
WATSON
WATSON WILKIN WILKINS
CHARLOTTE
CHARLOTTE EDMUND PL
BREWSTER
ST. ANTOINE
78
FOURTH
TEMPLE
ALFRED
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
LEDYARD ARD
SIBLEY
36 49 76
34
GR
AT
IO
PARK AVE
SECOND
49
I-75
18
78
HENRY
WINDER
53 37
MONTCALM
COLUMBIA
MONTCALM
MIC
HIG
PLUM
COLUMBIA
ELIZABETH
40
CLIFFORD
AN
THIRD
ELIZABETH
ADAMS
JO
LVD
BAGLEY
HN
MADISON
10
MULLET
CE
NT
RE
TO
GRISW
RPTC
OLD
NB
10
BR OA DW
CLINTON MACOMB
FAR MER
ING
AY
WASHINGTON
SECOND
27
FIRST
LAFAYETTE
N MO
RANDOLPH
Freeways act as barriers to North-South connections

FORT
19
WA
ABBOT
SH
STA
TE
MONROE
HOWARD
LAFAYETTE
48
49
RO
E
FA RM ER
CA
DIL
FORT
AC
SQ
GRISWOLD
29
UA
RE
CONGRESS LARNED
DETROIT RIV
SHELBY
CONGRESS
JEFFERSON
25
ER
50
51
2.0 Building a Shared Vision for the Greater Downtown Corridor

2.1 People 2.2 Greater
and Process Downtown TOD Planning Group interviews and work
2.3 Stakeholder
sessions
2.4 Community 2.5 Objectives 2.6 Guiding
Engagement
and Priorities
Principles
52
53
People and Process

The TOD Strategy was built upon a three part process. The first part employed incorporation of existing plans and initiatives as well as comprehensive research and thorough data gathering and analysis to achieve a robust understanding of the Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor. With this knowledge, the second part of the process then engaged key stakeholders from the public, private and philanthropic sectors to develop Corridor-wide guiding principles and objectives/ priorities that would guide development to reflect the aspirations of the Greater Downtown community. Out of this process, the TOD team developed sets of corridor and district-level strategies to achieve the aspirational goals of the community. These strategies collectively make-up the TOD Strategy referenced throughout this report. At each step of the process, recommendations were tested against market input and national best practices to assure that they were grounded in real world conditions and precedent successes. The Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) was a key partner throughout offering their experience and expertise to the TOD Strategy team. Additional expertise and support was provided by U3 Ventures, specifically addressing the role of the three anchor institutions (DMC, WSU, HFHS) in the TOD Strategy. Residential and retail market input was provided by Zimmerman-Volk Associates and Downtown Works respectively (see appendix B and C). The core decision-making and approval body for the TOD Strategy was the Greater Downtown TOD Planning Group. As the primary implementers of the plan, this group, made up of 16 members from the public, private and philanthropic sectors, lead by the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation and Downtown Detroit Partnership/M-1 Rail, met regularly to review and approve the findings and recommendations of the TOD Strategy team. The role of the Planning Group will be described in greater detail in the following pages.
2.1 a shared vision people and process
PART ONE: WHAT WE KNOW UNDERSTANDING THE GREATER DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PART TWO: WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE BUILDING A SHARED VISION FOR THE GREATER DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR
plans & initatives
corridor data
research
planning area vision best practices market input (int.) guiding principles priorities & objectives Corridor Vision
community input
stakeholder input
PART THREE: WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN COMPLETE DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLANS
market input (int.) market input (ext.)
corridor strategies district action plans

neighborhood
stakeholder input
action plans
community input
Right: Diagram of the process to create the Greater Downtown TOD Strategy.
54
55
2.1 a shared vision people and process
community
+
residents
Community Connected The TOD Strategy is framed around the four primary light rail user groups in the Woodward Corridor: residents, employees, visitors and students. The primary goal of the TOD Strategy is to ensure that future development supports safe and convenient connections to neighborhoods, job centers, destinations and services in a walkable, pedestrian-centered environment. A Collaborative Approach The success of the Woodward Corridor TOD Strategy is predicated on the collaborative cooperation of a diverse range of participants that share the responsibility for shaping the vision for the corridor and in creating a positive community impact in response to the light rail investment. The TOD process is being led and informed by groups of participants representing the City of Detroit, the funding community, the businesses, neighborhoods, and institutions from the Detroit River to Eight Mile Road and the general public. Together, these groups collaborate with a team of professional planning, design and financial consultants whose charge is to develop a planning framework that encourages increased transit ridership and sustainable, equitable development for the Woodward Corridor community over the long term. The overarching goal is to leverage current planning and development initiatives as the foundation for future development and public infrastructure improvements that collectively focus on improving the quality of life in the Woodward Corridor. Community Engagement Citizens have been and will continue to be active participants in the TOD Strategy planning process. The TOD approach includes a series of round table events that incorporate public input as the planning efforts move forward. These interactive events were designed to raise public awareness and provide a forum for citizens to engage civic leaders, community stakeholders and design professionals at key milestones in the planning process.
employees
Greater Downtown TOD Planning Group The Greater Downtown TOD Planning Group is the primary oversight and decision-making body of the Greater Downtown TOD Strategy. The Group is composed of members from the public, private and philanthropic sectors to represent the interests of Woodward Corridor residents and stakeholders in the CBD, Midtown and New Center between the Detroit riverfront and Euclid Street. Throughout the planning process, the Group meet regularly to review and provide input as the TOD Strategy developed. Stakeholder Group Stakeholders were assembled to represent residents, businesses, institutions and other community members who live and work within a mile radius of the Woodward Light Rail line. Due to the large size of the study area and the wide variety of issues and opportunities to be explored, over 150 community stakeholders were organized geographically into sub-groups by district and neighborhood to participate in the TOD planning process. Through interviews, workshops and critiques of the work, stakeholders participated in the authorship of the vision, principles and action plans that will guide investment and development throughout their communities.
Mike
visitors
students
connected
Above: Primary light rail user groups
56
57
2.2 a shared vision planning group
GREATER DOWNTOWN PLANNING GROUP

Organization Kresge Foundation Hudson Webber, Kresge Foundations Downtown Detroit Partnership Invest Detroit Midtown Detroit, Inc. Compuware Detroit Medical Center Henry Ford Health System Olympia Development of Michigan Quicken Loans Wayne State University City Planning Commission DDOT
Greater Downtown TOD Planning Group

Greater Downtown TOD Planning Group is responsible for providing direct oversight and guidance for the Woodward Light Rail TOD planning process for the portion of the Woodward Corridor extending from Jefferson Ave. in the CBD 3.4 miles north to Euclid in New Center. Each step of the development of the TOD Strategy was throroughly reviewed, vetted and approved by the Planning Group. In addition, the Planning Group provided leadership and advocacy for the general public, neighborhood stakeholders and professional consultants who are collaborating on the Woodward Light Rail TOD Project. This Downtown-Midtown-New Center focused Planning Group includes representatives of the downtown corridors businesses, institutions, residents, employees and visitors, as well as the philanthropic community, local community development leadership, finance, the Mayors office, the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation (DEGC), Planning and Development and the Planning Commission. The Planning Group is committed to engaging the community in an inclusive process of two-way input, review and feedback. This was accomplished through involvement of community residents and stakeholders from the three major downtown districts: CBD, Midtown and New Center/Northend. Additionally community engagement was facilitated through a series of community round table meetings. Staffing from the Downtown Detroit Partnership/M-1 Rail and the DEGC supported the Planning Group with assistance from a consultant team led by Hamilton Anderson Associates.
P&DD DTC/DPM DEGC
Representative Benjamin Kennedy U3 Ventures Robert Gregory Dave Blaszkiewicz Sue Mosey Steve Marquardt Dave Menardo Bill Schramm Eric B. Larson David Carroll Jim Sears Marcell Todd Triette Reeves Tim Roseboom Marja Winters Barbara Hansen Malik Goodwin Olga Stella Ron Flies
Right: Representatives of the Greater Downtown TOD Planning Group
58
59
2.4 a shared vision community engagement
Accessibility
Design must account for the high percentage of seniors, patients at the DMC, HFH, the Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan and those with limited physical capabilities Safe, conventient and accessible Woodward crossings for people of all physical capabilities Maintenance, including snow removal, of areas surrounding stations is critical to accessibility
Aesthetics
Clean and attractive stations will help act as a preventive to crime Station design should reflect the cultural heritage of the neighborhood Stations should protect riders from the elements, provide comfortable seating and provide clear views inside and out for safety Electronic sign boards would be helpful to provide schedule and trip information Medians should be designed with attractive landscaping and provide sightlines across Woodward Stations needs to be well maintained as well as designed
Commercial Development
A grocery store was listed on 193 of 234 respondents as a desired retail development There is concern that a Whole Foods will be too expensive for residents There is a desire for national chain retail within the Woodward Corridor Desired retail includes: family-style restaurants, personal services (shoe shine, barber shop, nail salons), entertainment venues, bookstores, cafes, and dry cleaners The neighborhood is against new liquor or beauty supply stores
Community Engagement
As part of the TOD Strategy planning process, Midtown Detroit Inc. and the Downtown Detroit Partnership conducted a series of community meetings to provide information to the public and solicit feedback on Woodward Light Rail and associated transit-oriented development. Under the title Woodward Light Rail, Transit Oriented Development & You, 27 meetings were conducted with the following goals: Target specific audiences and obtain Transit Oriented Development feedback relative to design, safety, aesthetics etc. Connect with community stakeholders, residents, and employees Disseminate available updates on the Woodward Light Rail project so that the community feels informed and connected Identify community questions, comments, and concerns that have not been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Study, Woodward Light Rail website (www.woodwardlightrail.com), or any other information avenues The forum-style meetings were conducted to create two-way dialogue between facilitators and attendees. After a brief presentation describing Woodward Light Rail and TOD, participants broke into small groups to discuss particular areas of interest or concern and then reconvened for a report from each group. Participants were asked to discuss six topics within the context of the future transit line and how new development might affect their neighborhood. The six topics discussed were: Accessibility Aesthetics Commercial Development Safety Residential Development Rail Utilization The result of these discussions was a comprehensive final report (see Appendix B) to inform decision-making throughout development and implementation of the TOD Strategy and to ensure that community feedback and support is a cornerstone of the TOD planning process.
Right: Major themes and community input at Woodward Light Rail, TOD & You community engagement meetings
Seamless accessibility between public walks and light rail cars including wide aisles for grocery carts, wheel chairs and scooters
Residential Development
Midtown residents are proud of the diversity their neighborhood There is a need for blight reduction and neighborhood stabilization Senior housing needs to be protected from conversion to market-rate condos Existing residents want to feel secure that they will not be priced out of the area There was support for mixedincome rather than low-income development New student housing was supported Strong support for mixed use projects to create a more dense and vibrant district
Safety
Stakeholders ranked safety of riders and area of businesses as a top priority. Groups wanted a transit authority police force dedicated to WLR Support for video surveillance cameras at stations There was concern that the stations would become havens for loitering and vagrancy Stations and adjacent streets need to be well lit to be safe Need for modern street lights that are easily maintained and cast a clear and appealing light
Rail Utilization
DDOT and SMART service must be reliable and create an easy transfer to WLR Well coordinated parking with WLR was a major issue for businesses and the cultural institutions There was support for a parking deck at the State Fair Grounds as long as it was safe and protected vehicles from the elements Park-n-ride lots should be operated by the City to provide greater opportunity for jobs to Detroit residents Stations and adjacent streets need to be well lit to be safe In addition to 8 Mile, there was support for a park-n-ride in Midtown accessible to I-75, I-94 and the Lodge People wanted the ability to buy tickets at convenience stores and drug stores or use EBT Bridge Card for payment
Other Comments
Ellington residents expressed concern about excessive loitering from existing DDOT bus stop and if a WLR stop would also promote loitering
Need for construction mitigation to reduce impact on neighborhoods and Woodward businesses Major resident concerns about the existing DDOT bus system: late buses, poor customer service, accessibility for elderly and disabled
60
61
2.3 a shared vision stakeholder interviews
NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 3% FREEWAYACCESS 3%
IMMEDIATEPRIORITIES CBD
DIVERSITYOFUSES OTHER 3% 0%
IMMEDIATEPRIORITIES ENTERTAINMENTDISTRICT
DIVERSITYOFUSES 5% OTHER 4%
Stakeholder Interviews and Work Sessions

The TOD Strategy team conducted one-on-one stakeholder meetings throughout the TOD planning process to incorporate current initiatives and inform a set of Corridor-wide guiding principles and objectives and priorities. Additionally stakeholder work sessions were conducted on August 4-5, 2010 for four major planning areas: Central Business District, Entertainment District, Midtown and New Center. At these meetings, participants were asked to lay-out their priorities in order to inform a larger vision for TOD in the Greater Downtown Corridor. Priorities varied by geography. The overwhelming majority in the Central Business District/Entertainment District ranked district safety and cleanliness as their number one priority. It was critical for employers and business owners to project an image of safety to their employees and visitors many of whom are commuting to the CBD from the metropolitan suburbs. Safety and cleanliness were also highly ranked in Midtown and New Center, but not to the same extent as the CBD. In Midtown access to public transportation and neighborhood walkability were very important, reflecting a higher percentage of resident stakeholders and a desire to build stronger transit-oriented neighborhoods. In New Center, creating density and adding retail amenities were ranked as the highest priorities. This reflected a general desire among New Center stakeholders to expand the existing commercial office identity towards a more active, mixeduse district. Through group discussions at these meetings, five major themes emerged that would inform the development of the TOD Strategy: 1. Public safety 2. Residential growth 3. Quality retail amenities 4. Cars and transit 5. Support for economic development These themes were brought to the Greater Downtown Planning Group and used to shape a set of objectives and priorities for each of the three major districts as well as a set of guiding principles that could be referenced to ensure that the TOD Strategy stayed responsive to priorities of the community at large throughout the planning process.
Heard at Stakeholder Work Sessions Safety: The voters rallied around SMART; why not safety?Get serious right now about safety and security. Twenty-somethings are not as fearful. Perception is reality. Residents: Rebuild the city from the core out. If I were in charge I would bring 100,000 people to live in the downtown. We need high quality K-12 options to support high paying jobs. HFH employee: Where can I live in New Center? We need retail that supports residents basic needs. Retail: There is successful retail; its just not visible. We want a more active district. Take the skywalks down and open up the front doors. Locally-owned businesses create a sense of place. Cars and transit: We have too much parking. I can never nd a place to park. Need to sell transit to the car culture establishment. Would anyone actually use a park-n-ride in Detroit? Safety and parking are linked. The younger generation is not a car generation. Investment: Create an investment environment. Streamline the nancing process. Offer a comprehensive package of incentives. We need more than just incentives; we need nancing. Businesses need a support network. Attract capital investment from outside the region.
PUBLICTRANSPORTATION 6%
CLEAN 15%
NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 2%
CLEAN 15%
ENVIRONMENT 0% RESIDENTIAL 3%
DENSITY 6%
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 7%
SIGNAGE/BRANDING RETAIL 0% 3%
DENSITY 9% SAFE 24% ENVIRONMENT 4% RESIDENTIAL 5% PEDESTRIANFRIENDLY 12% PARKING 9% EQUITABLEHOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 3% JOBS 13%
SAFE 18%
LIGHTING 9%
JOBS 3%
RETAIL 11%
PEDESTRIANFRIENDLY 4%
PARKING 4%
IMMEDIATEPRIORITIES MIDTOWN
DIVERSITYOFUSES 2% NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 1% FREEWAYACCESS 5% OTHER 8% CLEAN 11% SAFE 3% JOBS 5%
IMMEDIATEPRIORITIES NEWCENTER
NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION 0% DIVERSITYOFUSES 5% CLEAN 5% PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 10% SAFE 10%
JOBS 10% PARKING 7% PUBLICTRANSPORTATION 21% EQUITABLEHOUSING OPPORTUNITIES 4% PEDESTRIANFRIENDLY 8% DENSITY 29% PEDESTRIANFRIENDLY 5% PARKING 0%
LIGHTING 5%
DENSITY 4% ENVIRONMENT 7%
RETAIL 5%
LIGHTING 4% RESIDENTIAL 5%
RETAIL 19%
RESIDENTIAL 2%
SIGNAGE/BRANDING 5%
Above: Comments recorded during August 4-5, 2010 stakeholder meetings. Right: Pie charts of survey results from August 4-5, 2010 Stakeholder Meetings to assess district priorities
62
63
Guiding Principles
1. Prioritize a safe and clean environment The TOD Strategy will leverage partnerships and existing resources to improve the quality of the public realm including safety, security and maintenance within the corridor. 2. Permanently connect destinations to residents, employees and visitors All new development will be in support of permanently connecting existing residents, visitors and employees to existing assets, destinations and amenities in a vibrant walkable environment. 3. Create walkable streets with emphasis on Woodward and eastwest connections All new development will support walkable eastwest connections by requiring pedestrian-oriented design, an urban street network, appropriate densities, mix of uses, activated ground floors and an 18-hour environment. 4. Develop residential options in support of complete neighborhoods and districts Future policy and development will encourage an appropriate mix of market-rate and affordable housing in the corridor that creates a critical mass of neighborhoods and attracts destination, service and amenity retail. 5. Reinforce authentic character of existing districts and neighborhoods New development will preserve historic buildings and fully embrace and reinforce authentic existing components of each district and neighborhood to fully realize its market potential. 6. Prioritize development on Woodward Corridor plans and strategies will prioritize development on Woodward Avenue in support of the Light Rail investment. 7. Incorporate active plans - The TOD Strategy will incorporate and assimilate existing and current community development efforts. 8. Engage stakeholders The TOD Strategy will be informed by engaging stakeholders and the public in a meaningful participatory process. 9. Focus on areas with positive momentum All new development will build on adjacent successes and plan for positive outcomes that are achievable in todays market and stimulate development for future markets. Top Five Guiding Principles
1. A safe and clean environment is top priority 2. Permanently connect destinations to residents, employees, and visitors 3. Create walkable streets with emphasis on Woodward and east-west connections 4. Develop residential and retail options in support of complete neighborhoods and districts 5. Reinforce authentic character of existing district and neighborhoods
2.5 a shared vision guiding principles
10. Integrate station areas into adjacent communities Fully integrate transit stations into the communities they serve through mixed-use development, transit-supportive urban design, public art, and innovative management techniques. Transit facilities and station areas will be planned as valuable public places, including opportunities for placemaking and capturing the value of public transportation investments for local communities. 11. Connect all modes of transportation All new development will plan for a mix of transportation modes and transfer points including walking, biking, light rail, bus, commuter rail, auto and truck. 12. Revise parking requirements to encourage transit-use and walkability All new development within mile of the transit line will comply with future (revised) parking policies that discourage surface parking, require active, first floor uses and encourage other modes of transportation. 13. Create retail nodes around neighborhoods and districts Future policy and development will encourage a mix of locally-owned and national retailers in order to create viable retail nodes that fully serve the needs of residents, employees and visitors. 14. Create, promote, and maintain quality public spaces The TOD Corridor will support a diverse collection of public spaces; existing public spaces will flourish and improve, and new spaces will be planned for enhancing community benefit, generating economic stimulus and serving as a station area nucleus. 15. Establish benchmarks in one to ten years and monitor success over time Benchmarks will be established to monitor success over time in order to create a critical mass of employment centers, visitor destinations, retail districts and neighborhoods. 16. Assemble land now for strategic redevelopment Land will be purchased or public/private master plans will be conceived for large vacant sites around stations to develop catalyst projects demonstrating the full potential of TOD. Interim development regulations will be considered to prohibit inappropriate land uses while permanent plans and regulations are being prepared.
64
65
Objectives and Priorities - Residential

Central Business District Prioritize primarily residential districts north of Gratiot and Lafayette Develop phasing strategy with first priority placed on Woodward Integrate residential developments into subdistricts of a critical mass instead of isolated developments Create districts around quality public space Midtown Residential growth is the highest priority in Midtown (15,000 new residents) Prioritize residential development within mile of Woodward Prioritize renovation and adaptive reuse of historic buildings Encourage an integrated mix of housing types and income diversity throughout district Prioritize residential development in traditional South Midtown neighborhoods (Brush Park) New Center Grow residential population with a coordinated strategy and buyin from New Center, TechTown, HFHS, and North End/Vanguard Use residential development on West Grand Boulevard to create a walkable connection between HFH and Woodward Avenue Locate new workforce housing in close proximity to employment centers Address security issues at Seward and Woodward to stabilize New Center residential neighborhoods Prioritize safe and walkable connections along Woodward and Grand Boulevard from New Center/North End neighborhoods to transit stops Stabilize North End with residential rehabilitation and infill tools (financing/incentives)
66
2.6 a shared vision objectives/priorities
67
Objectives and Priorities - Employees

Central Business District Prioritize commercial development within mile of Campus Martius and Grand Circus Park. Create mixed use commercial-residential district within mile of Grand Circus Park Prioritize completing Campus Martius development on Hudsons and Monroe blocks Develop phasing strategy that prioritizes sites on Woodward Avenue No new superblock/campus development in the CBD; all new development must retain existing street grid Midtown Coordinate new institutional development with TOD planning. All new residential development in support of the Anchor Strategy (WSU and DMC) must be within mile of Woodward New facility development must engage streets and neighborhoods Connections between institutions and light rail stops must be directly accessible from the street (no rear main entrances) Existing institutional dead zones (lawns, setbacks, etc.) must incorporate active programming uses that promote walkability and street life New Center Connect job centers to Woodward Light Rail in a walkable environment Prioritize safe and walkable connection along West Grand Boulevard between Henry Ford Hospital and transit stop Incorporate mixed-use development commercial, retail, residential in the TechTown area to encourage the development and expansion of the mission of TechTown/New Economy Initiative Partner with educational and health care institutions to incorporate new economy and health care production, manufacturing and distribution uses on former industrial sites New institutional development (HFHS) must engage Grand Boulevard to facilitate connections to New Center and Woodward Light Rail
68
69
Objectives and Priorities - Visitors

Central Business District Prioritize vibrant, entertainment-driven mixed-use district around Grand Circus Park. Diversify uses to include residential, retail, and office in order to create a more active district Build-off of existing retail amenities along Park Ave. Midtown Unlock visitor populations from interior-focused cultural institutions to create a more active district New facility development must engage streets and neighborhoods Connections between institutions and light rail stops must be directly accessible from the street (no rear main entrances) Existing institutional dead zones (lawns, setbacks, etc.) must incorporate active programming uses that promote walkability and street life New Center Unlock hidden visitor populations (HFHS, CCS, WSU) from interior-focused destinations to create a more active district Use new HFHS development south of Grand Boulevard [retail/public space components] to help draw visitors out of the main hospital building Provide evening and weekend service retail for hospital and student visitors Create safe and walkable connections between visitor destinations and Woodward Light Rail Partner with adjacent institutions (HFHS, WSU, DMC, CCS) to support one New Center hotel
70
71
Objectives and Priorities - Retail

Central Business District Woodward retail between Campus Martius and Grand Circus Park with a clear strategy towards its success. Fill ground floor retail on Woodward between Campus Martius and Grand Circus Park with a high-quality mix of boutiques, bars, and restaurants that will be a destination for the city and region Create entertainment-related retail streets on Woodward and Park north of Grand Circus Park incorporating a high-quality mix of bars, restaurants, and visitor-centered amenities Create neighborhood retail district around Capitol Park Midtown Create critical mass of new retail amenities to support residential targets. Prioritize development of independent, neighborhood retail along and adjacent to Cass Avenue Prioritize destination retail on Woodward in support of cultural institutions and eds/meds Midtown visitors Prioritize service retail along John R to cater to DMC employee and visitor populations New Center Create viable retail nodes to support both employee and resident populations and reinforce walkable connections Create priority walking street along West Grand Boulevard between Woodward and HFHS, incorporating a series of active outward facing retail establishments and public spaces Create high-quality contiguous neighborhood-oriented retail strip along Woodward between Baltimore and Pallister (use Royal Oak Ferndale retail as model) Use new development with first floor retail on West Grand Boulevard between Second Avenue and HFHS to enhance walkable pedestrian connections Incorporate street-facing retail into new HFHS investments south of the Boulevard
72
73
Objectives and Priorities - Public Space

Central Business District Seamlessly connect Woodward Light Rail to the Riverwalk and other major public spaces within an overall strategy to promote, maintain, and program public space throughout the CBD as a community benefit and to spur development. Concentrate new development around public space investments Any new riverfront development should support physical and visual public connections to the river Midtown Public space must be created, promoted, maintained, and programmed as a community benefit, to help spur development and to reinforce neighborhoods. Prioritize development of additional public space to serve growing residential Midtown neighborhoods Assemble and retain contiguous areas of vacant land to be held until planning is complete for targeted strategic redevelopment New Center Public space must be created, promoted, maintained, and programmed as a community benefit, to help spur development and to reinforce neighborhoods. Incorporate high-quality public space into HFHS development south of Grand Boulevard Use public space to enhance pedestrian experience at intermodal rail site Promote, maintain, and program public space adjacent to residential neighborhoods
74
75
Objectives and Priorities - Transit

Central Business District Seamlessly connect Woodward Light Rail to the Detroit People Mover to maximize connectivity of dispersed destinations, job centers and modes of transportation. Enhance DPM service to maximize efficiency of an integrated transit system (evaluate two-way service to major destinations) Create priority walking streets between transit stops and major destinations: Renaissance Center, Cobo, CBD hotels, Greektown BCBS, etc. Midtown Promote several safe, walkable east-west connections to connect stations to destinations. Transit stops must be visible and accessible to the institutions they serve Transit service must be frequent and regular to promote maximum ridership Transit stop locations must tie seamlessly into other modes of transportation including sidewalks, bus routes, bike lanes, and park-n-rides. Transit stops engage streets and neighborhoods New Center Create an exciting, attractive and efficient intermodal gateway to the City that maximizes the visitor experience Create a seamless connection between light rail, busses and commuter rail at Amtrak intermodal exchange less than 100 feet between connections Prioritize development that reinforces or enhances intermodal connections at rail and freeways (intermodal facility, park-n-rides, distribution centers, streetscape between intermodal connections) Use TOD immediately around intermodal station to create a more vibrant and active district Prioritize comprehensive plan for revitalization of gateway connections off of I-75 (Service Drive/East Grand Boulevard) and I-94 (Trumbull/I-94 Service Drive) If shuttle or bus connections are used between Woodward Light Rail and HFHS, they must be seamless and attractive, similar to the light rail experience
76
77
3.0 Greater Downtown TOD Strategy

3.1 Complete
Districts and Neighborhoods Capacity and Demand
3.2 Aspiration, 3.3 The
Greater Downtown TOD Strategy and Funding
3.4 Phasing 3.5 Priority
Walking Streets Building on Station Locations Case Study: Portland
3.6 Community 3.7 Implications
3.8 Development
Pearl District
78
79
Complete Districts and Neighborhoods

The fundamental goal of the Greater Downtown TOD Strategy is the creation of Complete Neighborhoods and Districts. Complete communities are defined as neighborhoods or districts that are self-sufficient by virtue of interconnected transit and commercial environments, and are surrounded by a diversity of housing types, services, and amenities. Instead of being focused on parcel-based development around the rail stations, this approach refocuses development to build on the existing assets of the neighborhood; the rail is merely a catalyst. Furthermore it takes a holistic approach to creating vibrant, walkable neighborhoods providing a critical balance between residential and commercial uses connected in pedestrianoriented environment. Throughout the Greater Downtown today, there exists multiple unique districts and neighborhoods in various stages of their evolution. The Greater Downtown TOD Strategy seeks to leverage the light rail investment to further develop, enhance and connect these existing districts and neighborhoods. Case Study: University City, Philadelphia The idea of complete districts and neighborhoods has been deployed successfully in many communities, if not specifically defined as such. Much of the work in University City, Philadelphia is built around this idea. There, a consortium of anchor institutions including the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Health System, and Drexel University pooled their collective resources to help build and develop their adjacent communities. They operated under the belief that their own institutional success was contingent upon the success of the local communities they inhabit. By first financially supporting the University City District to create a special services district to address crime and safety issues in the neighborhoods, the anchor institutions in partnership with the local CDC were able to create an environment that was welcoming to their employees, students and visitors to walk, explore and shop the neighborhood. Later by offering financial incentives to their employees
3.1 tod strategy complete districts
Clockwise from top: Additional cities that have successfully taken a districtcentered approach to development: Green Line Cafe, University City District, Philadelphia, PA; Warehouse District, Cleveland, OH; Pearl District, Portland, OR; South Side Flats, Pittsburgh, PA
80
81
and making major investments in and around their campuses, the area has succeeded in adding thousands of new residents to the district and catalyzing hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, while continuing to maintain and build off of the existing character of the neighborhood. Case Study: Pearl District, Portland, OR Portland, Oregon took a similar district-centered approach to its transit-oriented development as it implemented its downtown Portland Streetcar circulator system. There, the Pearl District, through which the Streetcar runs, was considered as a whole and planned in conjunction with the light rail line, not just the areas immediately adjacent to the stations. Developers working in partnership with city officials planned a series of public parks to be connected by the light rail line. The parks were created both as a community asset and a catalyst for development. Similarly the walkability of the district was privileged above all other development concerns. The Pearl Districts development was contingent upon a block-by-block development strategy to ensure contiguous areas of walkability. Instead of first developing land adjacent to an obvious asset like the Willamette River, developers began development adjacent to the existing warehouses that defined the character of the neighborhood in order to connect back to the fabric of the city as development preceded outward eventually terminating at the River.
3.1 tod strategy complete districts
Clockwise from left: Other cities that have successfully taken a districtcentered approach to development: Lodo, Denver, CO; Wynwood Art District, Miami, FL; Gaslamp District, San Diego, CA; Morgan Adams, Washington, DC; Cabbagetown, Atlanta, GA
82
83
3.2 tod strategy aspiration/capacity
Aspiration
What We Want
Targets & Place
Capacity
Demand
Market Potential
What the Market Will Bear
Aspiration, Capacity, Demand

The calculus for Greater Downtown TOD involves a balance between three metrics: aspiration, capacity and demand. Aspiration is both a number and a place. It represents how much a community wants to grow as well as what it will look and feel like as it realizes growth. Capacity is a measure of what can be achieved. It provides both an inventory of what is possible and a goal for what can be achieved. Demand represents the market potential and how development can be steered in terms of location and product to increase demand. A synergy between these three metrics ultimately leads to a prioritization of development. It acknowledges that in order to create the communities that we aspire towards, development must be focused and resources properly allocated to have the greatest effect. Aspiration Aspiration reflects both a quantitative goal, in terms of putting a number to the desire, and qualitative goal, in terms of defining the place a community aspires to be. Over the course of multiple Planning Group and Stakeholder meetings, a diverse, but cohesive range of aspirations emerged. Fifteen thousand new resident by 2015 was echoed as a goal for key stakeholders and the foundations. Entertainment District stakeholders believed that 10,000 more units should be built out in order to create a vibrant mixed-use district. New Center stakeholders thought 5,000 units would be necessary to enliven the district and give it a 24-hour energy. Many stakeholders throughout the corridor wanted to prioritize historic preservation and ensure that any new development be in-keeping with the existing place. Looking at each districts targets for growth as well as the overall ambitions for growth throughout the Woodward corridor, it became evident that the Greater Downtown would need to double its residential population and thus its residential density. The Greater Downtown currently stands at roughly 25,000 residents at a density of 10 people per acre. By the end of the 10-year TOD build-out, the Greater Downtown should have roughly 50,000 residents at a density Aspiration
We need atleast 10,000 more people for true sustainability downtown - maybe 20,000 or 30,000. The Quicken employees will make a difference, but it doesnt solve the problem. - Mark Talley, Vice President, Grubb & Ellis Co., Detroit; Detroit News, July 15, 2010 If I were in charge...I would like to get 100,000 people actually living between New Center and downtown [...] and devise strategies to overcome any obstacles that stand in the way of that goal. - Peter Karmanos, CEO, Compuware, Detroit; Flashpoint, December 26, 2010
Context and Inventory

What the Greater Downtown Can Support
Priorities
Resources
Financing Policy TOD-friendly land
Catalytic Sites Short-term wins
Focused Development
Strategic consensusdriven phasing
Detroit
Downtown - Current
Land Area
3.6 sq. mi.
Detroit
Goal 2020
Land Area
3.6 sq. mi.
Philadelphia
Center/University City
Land Area
5.1 sq. mi.
Density
10.0 pop/ac
Density
20.0 pop/ac
Density
30.0 pop/ac
Residents
23,000
Residents
46,000
Residents
98,096
New Residential Units

14,000
New Residential Units

13,080
Right top: Diagram showing the relationship between aspiration, capacity and demand for residential housing within the Greater Downtown Right bottom: The Detroit Goal for doubling in the overall population in the Greater Downtown
Average Household
1.6 residents
84
85
Ferry Street - 13 units/acre

Height: 2-3 stories Mix of new townhouses and historic renovated homes
Lofts at New Center - 21 units/acre

Height: 2.5 stories New attached row townhouses
of 20 people per acre. National best practices of peer cities bear out that a residential density approaching 20 units per acre is a key target for safe, vibrant, walkable urban neighborhoods. With this in mind, the members of the Greater Downtown Planning Group thus collectively approved this as a major goal of the TOD Strategy. Capacity If aspiration is based on desire, capacity seeks to ground aspiration in the context of the place to provide an inventory of what is currently available for development. The first steps towards prioritizing development to achieve increased density is to define boundaries to focus development. In order to leverage the light rail investment national best practices bear out that vacant parcels within a 1/4 mile of Woodward should be prioritized. Currently there is over 245 acres of vacant land or surfacing parking within a 1/4 mile of Woodward in the Greater Downtown corridor. Building out these parcels with an appropriate mix of townhouse and multi-story mixed use residential at densities between 30 and 70 units per acre (UPA) would produce roughly 8,950 new residential units. Additionally there is over 4.3 million square feet of vacant historic building space suitable for residential adaptive reuse throughout the corridor. This translates into an additional 4,600 units of adaptive reuse. The total number of units available for each of the three major districts are estimated as follows: CBD 5,653 units; Midtown 5,268 units; New Center 2,678 units. All told, the total number of units in the Greater Downtown available within a 1/4 mile of Woodward including adaptive reuse of all vacant historic structures is 13,639 units. Assuming an average household size of 1.6, complete build-out and occupancy of these 13,639 new units would yield a Greater Downtown population increase of 21,800 new residents, a number approaching the aspirational goal of doubling the residential population. Similarly, prioritizing development within the 1/4 mile and building out at this density would help to infill existing gaps in the urban fabric and greatly improve the walkability of the entire corridor.
Right: Densities of recently completed Greater Downtown residential development
Carola Lofts - 42 units/acre

Height: 7 stories Loft style renovation of historic building
Ellington Lofts - 55 units/acre*

Height: 5 stories Mixed-use ground oor retail, four-story residential new construction
Kales Building - 100 units/acre*

Height: 18 stories Adaptive reuse, rst oor retail, second oor tness center, 16 oors residential
Millender Center - 113 units/acre

Height: 33 stories (varies) New construction high rise apartments UPA includes attached parking deck
Lofts at Merchant Row - 372 units/acre*

Height: 10 stories (varies) District scale adaptive reuse, rst oor retail, nine stories residential
* = UPA does not include adjacent parking decks

greater downtown tod strategy 87
86
SECOND AVE
VACANT LAND AND VACANT BUILDINGS
WOODWARD (M-1
M-10
132 128 128 129 126 127 124 130 131
New Center: new dwelling units

GRAND
SECOND AVE.
12
122
121
= 2,678 units
Demand While aspiration defines what is desired and capacity defines what is possible, demand defines how it can be achieved. Numbers throughout this section are based on the findings of the 2010 Zimmerman-Volk Residential Greater Downtown Market Potential Study. In this study, demand is defined in terms of market potential. The study establishes the optimum market position for new housing derived from the housing preferences and socioeconomic characteristics of households in the draw areas within the framework of the local housing market context. Using this methodology, the study analyzes how new housing product coming onto the market can best be developed and positioned to cater to the people most likely to move to the Greater Downtown. Under optimal conditions, the study estimates that currently there is market potential for 926 new units per year with an additional 464 units per year within 1/4 mile of transit after the implementation of the Woodward Light Rail. Creating vibrant, dense amenity-rich neighborhoods is key to achieving this market potential. This is evident by the increase of market potential with the introduction of Woodward Light Rail. Furthermore Zimemrman-Volk states that projects situated within a short walking distance of highvalue amenities, such as restaurants, theaters, shops, or transit, or with views of the River, will likely command rents and prices at the upper end of values. Projects at the outer edges, near the interstates, are likely to command lower values. All of this points to the importance of focusing development to create density, vibrancy, and walkability in order to meet this market potential. Under the Zimmerman-Volk estimates, total annual market potential is 1,390 units per year. Under the ten-year TOD Strategy, this translates to a total of 13,900 new units. If focused within a 1/4 mile of transit, this number roughly corresponds to Corridor capacity and aspirational goals.
107
BRUSH STREET
CASS AVE E.
2,040 New Construction + 638 Adaptive Reuse
120 119
11
I-75
I-94
106
105
10
FERRY
WARREN
FOREST
4,110 New Construction + 1,158 Adaptive Reuse
104 103
8
102
RE N R STREET JOHN
Midtown:
WARREN
CANFIELD
ALEXANDRINE
100 99
101
7
MACK
75 74 73 71 96 69 91 67 90 88 87 85 84 83 82 86 68
72
BRUSH STREET
MLK
98 97
76
WILKINS
65
TEMPLE
89
66
I-75
7978 77
81
G
39 38 36
RA
TIO
32
31
30
2,880 New Construction + 2,773 Adaptive Reuse
9 8 7 6 60 5 4 26 27 28 25 24 23 3 2 1 22 21 20 19 62 63
41 10 42 11 4043 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
58 57 56 55 54 45 53 52 46 51 47 50 48 44 49
61
= 5,653 units
FORT
3 2 1
RIVERWALK - PHA
JEFFERSON
DETROIT RIV
ER
SE ONE
88
CBD:
MI
5
29
CH
IG
AN
59
35 34 33
= 5,268 units
ND RA G VER RI
89
3.3 tod strategy strategy
EUCLID
VIRGINA PARK
SEWARD
DELAWARE CLAY PALLISTER
PALLISTER
NEW CENTER
BETHUNE LOTHROP OP
NORTH END
11
MILWAUKEE AU UK K M RE BALTIMORE
10
AMSTERD R AM
Greater Downtown TOD Strategy

Increase population and create density The core principle of the Greater Downtown TOD Strategy is to use increased density to create vibrant and walkable districts and neighborhoods. As part of the TOD planning process, Planning Group members representing the public, private and philanthropic sectors have set a goal of doubling the Greater Downtown residential population in the next ten years from 25,000 to 50,000 Greater Downtown residents. This goal is aligned with parallel Greater Downtown initiatives such as Hudson-Webbers 15 by 15 (15,000 new residents by 2015) and Live Midtown/Live Downtown residential financial incentives programs offered to Greater Downtown employees to move Downtown. However, while setting targets for increased residential population in the Greater Downtown is important, the distribution of that increased population must be targeted to achieve higher densities in specific areas and thus add a critical mass of new residents to improve street vitality, walkability and subsequently spur an increase in market-rate housing values to sustain future development. Over the last ten years, the Greater Downtown has added over 4,000 new housing units. While this number is strong from an economic development standpoint, the new housing units have been spread out over nearly four square miles and have not succeeded in creating sufficient density in any one area to achieve a critical mass of residents in order to create contiguous areas of walkability. Three districts, three district centers In order to create a critical mass of residents, the TOD Strategy seeks first to focus residential development on three Districts Centers: CBD, Midtown and New Center. The CBD, Midtown and New Center represent the three major districts in the Greater Downtown. Within each of these districts are smaller neighborhoods and sub-districts. For example, within the CBD, neighborhoods and sub-districts include
TECHTOWN
BURROUGHS YORK
PIQUETTE
RPE HARPER
MEDBURY
ANTOINETTE
DRI HENDRIE
PALMER
PALMER
FERRY
9
KIRBY KI
FERRY
ART CENTER
KIRBY
CCS
ED FREDER
CULTURAL DISTRICT
TNA T TN UT PUTNAM RTH ORTH WO FARNSW
KIRBY K
K DOUGLASS ICK
TARGET DENSITIES 100++ UPA 60 UPA
ORTH O AR FARNSW
WOODBRIDGE
K AN OCK HANCOC
8
OCK HA HANCOC
ST. ANTOINE
MIDTOWN
FOREST
FOREST
40 UPA 10 UPA
D ELD E FIE GARFIEL
CANFIELD C
LLI WILLIS
1/8 MILE RADIUS 1/4 MILE RADIUS
E INE NDRIN XANDR ALEXA
THIRD
SELDEN
DEN SELDEN
RS NS PARSO
BRAINARD
V PORT DAVEN
6
ELIOT SK E ERSKIN WATSO WAT N
ELLIOT
N MSON M IM STIMSO
PETERBORO
PETERBORO
WATSON WILKINS
CHARLOTTE
MOTOR CITY
FOURTH
ALFRED
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
LEDYARD
T SP SPROA ADELAIDE
SIBLEY HENRY DER WINDE WIN
ONTCA O MONTCALM
COLUMBIA
M MONTCALM
PLUM
O COLUMBIA
TH LIZ ELIZABE
MGM
THIRD
ELIZABETH
ADAMS
LVD
BAGLEY
JO HN
CE
DTE
GRAND CIRCUS PARK
3
E ER ARM FA
MADISON
NT
GRISW SW
CORKTOWN
SH ING TO NB
CBD
RE
ST. ANTOINE
CLINTON MACOMB MONRO
LARNED
TEMPLE
LOWER CASS
OTTE HARLO H CHARL CH EDMUND PL TEMPLE
BRUSH PARK
BREWSTER ALFRED
AVE ARK A PARK P
OL LD D
WA
SECOND
CL CLIFFORD
ABBOT
MULLET
D OA BR WA Y
STA
TE
CAPITOL PARK
E
FA ER RM
GREEKTOWN E
HOWARD LAFAYETTE
SECOND
FINANCIAL DISTRICT
SHELBY
WASHINGTON
FIRST
CA CAMPUS D MARTIUSILAC S
LD GRISWOLD
MO
RANDOLPH H
O NR
BCBS
RT FORT
GRESS NG CONG
QU
AR
The primary focus of the TOD Strategy is to create three nodes of residential and retail density in the Greater Downtown: one in the CBD; one in Midtown; and one in New Center. Then from there build out highest density closest to Woodward to leverage the light rail investment. (Right)
CONGRESS

RIVERWALK
90
91
WOODWARD (M-1)
SECOND AVE.
M-10
the Financial District, Greektown, MGM/DTE, the Civic Center and the Entertainment District. Taking the three major districts, the locations of the District Centers were determined by a wide variety of factors including existing residential population and retail amenities, proximity to job centers, recent development momentum, planned and pipeline future development, proximity to public space, centrality within the district, proximity to Woodward and Woodward Light Rail, potential for walkability, TOD-friendly land ownership, favorable zoning and existing fabric suitable for higher density mixed-use development. The three District Centers are located as follows: in the CBD, on Woodward from Campus Martius to Grand Circus Park; in Midtown, on Canfield between John R and Cass; in New Center, on West Grand Boulevard between Woodward and Henry Ford Hospital. The TOD Strategy seeks to target development and create density first at these three District Centers. Density in this case means both increased residential density and increased density of retail amenities. The core residential density target for the District Center is development at 100 units per acre or greater. The core retail amenity density target is 8 retail establishments per acre. This would achieve a retail density comparable to competitive suburban downtowns such as Royal Oak and Birmingham. Build out from district center and connect neighborhoods After the District Center is established, phasing for future development should build out from the District Center in order to create contiguous areas of density and walkability within the district. Areas adjacent to the district center and all development along Woodward Light Rail should strive to achieve a minimum density of 60 units per acre within an eighth of a mile and a minimum of 40 units per acre within a quarter mile of Woodward and the District Center. Because the district and District Center represent the core development focus of the TOD Strategy, all neighborhoods and sub-districts must be connected back to the District Center in a
GRAND
12
BRUSH STREET
Royal Oak - 4th Ave. and Main

SECOND AVE.
CASS AVE E.
11
I-75
I-94
10
FERRY
WARREN
9
RE N R STREET JOHN
WARREN
FOREST
8
ALEXANDRINE
ND RA G VER RI
CANFIELD
7
MACK
BRUSH STREET
MLK
WILKINS
Birmingham - Pierce and Merrill

In addition to Ann Arbor, regionally Royal Oak and Birmingham have thriving downtowns. Within an 1/4 mile of Fourth Avenue and Main Street in Royal Oak, there are 142 retail amenities. Within a 1/4 mile of Pierce and Merrill in Birmingham, there are 95 retail amenities. In the Greater Downtown, in its most amenity-rich areas, there only 22, 20 and 23 retail amenities in the CBD, Midtown and New Center respectively, and even of those establishments, many are not of the same quality you find at other regionally competitive downtowns. Incidentally outside of a 1/4 mile of these intersections in Royal oak and Birmingham the number of retail amenities trails off considerably, pointing to the importance of focusing on dense nodes rather than spreading out amenities over a greater distance.
TEMPLE
RA
TIO
MI
5
CH IG AN
3
FORT
2 1
JEFFERSON
DETROIT RIVE
RIVERWALK - PHA
SE ONE
92
93
walkable environment or by Woodward Light Rail. This will require multimodal infrastructure and streetscape improvements along major connective streets. These connections must accommodate all modes of transit including bikes, cars and buses, but do it in such a way as to privilege the pedestrian environment. Every decision made regarding development and infrastructure improvements should be evaluated in terms of whether it enhances or detracts from the walkability of the district. Walkability is the key to building healthy districts and neighborhoods. Neighborhoods and sub-districts should function as independent geographical areas within a larger interconnected district and thus develop sufficient neighborhood retail and service amenities and public space to sustain and grow their existing residential and employee populations. While development resources should first be prioritized for growing the District Centers, neighborhood and subdistrict stakeholders should focus their resources on development that improves connectivity back to the District Center and Woodward Light Rail. Implementation The above represents the conceptual framework for the Greater Downtown TOD Strategy. What follows are the steps towards its implementation. The phasing and funding of district development, starting with the growth of the District Center, holds the key to successful implementation of the strategy. It is described first with a description of how the location of the light rail stations will reinforce the district development build out. The next section lays out a series of action plans to be undertaken at the Corridor level, the District level and the Neighborhood/Sub-district level. The action plans identify key stakeholders, existing plans and initiatives and make recommendations for how each of these levels of geographical organization can reinforce the overall TOD Strategy to ensure its success.
Right: Detroit has great retail, but it is scattered throughout the Greater Downtown. Compare this to Ann Arbors Main Street (above) where there is a density of retail amenities that attract large crowds in a walkable environment.
94
95
3.4 tod strategy funding/phasing
Gramont Manor Development Cost (Ination Adjusted): $95/SF Current Market Value: $30/SF
EUCLID
VIRGINA PARK
SEWARD
DELAWARE CLAY PALLISTER
PALLISTER
Lofts at Woodward DC: $150/SF MV: $45/SF
NEW CENTER
BETHUNE OP LOTHROP
NORTH END
11
AU UK K MILWAUKEE M RE BALTIMORE
Phasing and Funding

Development resources must be prioritized and focused to create contiguous areas of development that reinforce the walkability of the district. The TOD Strategy makes the critical assumption that if development proceeds as per the recommended phasing of the TOD Strategy and is successful in creating increased density, neighborhood vibrancy and improved walkability that market-rate real estate values will increase, thus decreasing the overall development funding gap over time and subsequently the amount of subsidy necessary to undertake development. The current market The TOD Strategy analyzed recent residential development costs in the CBD, Midtown and New Center as well as recent real estate list prices to evaluate the market in each of the three major districts (table at right). Overall new construction tended to run $50/SF more than historic reuse ($190/SF versus $140/SF); also CBD development costs averaged slightly higher (+/-$50/SF) than Midtown and New Center development primarily due to a higher quality housing product and more expensive parking configurations in the CBD. Baseline development costs in the graphs on p.97 reflect these conditions. Due to current market conditions, capitalized unit values for new rental development were used instead of market-rate condo sale values. Average capitalized market values for rental units in the three districts for historic reuse and new construction are as follows (rent per SF shown in parentheses): CBD - $150/SF ($1.40/SF); Midtown - $110/SF ($1.00/SF); New Center - $110/SF ($1.00/SF). These values are averages for the overall district. It should be understood that within the districts, there are buildings that either far exceed or fall well below these averages; the locations of these outliers often corresponds with the buildings proximity to job centers and amenities, further reinforcing the basic premise of TOD Strategy to increase market-rates by strategically locating development to create density around amenities. Recent Development Costs
Historic Reuse Book Cadillac (455 hotel/67 condo): $185 million (2008) $240/SF (770K SF) Fort Shelby (204 hotel/63 condo): $80 million (2008) $237/SF (337K SF) Kales (117): $15 million (2005) $130/SF (115K SF) Merchants Row (157): $32 million (2004) $180/SF (178K SF) Willys Overland (75): $18 million (2008) $126/SF (145K SF) Newberry Building (28): $5.9 million (2010) $158/SF (37K SF) Carlton (57): $9.1 million (2009) $126/SF (72K SF) New Amsterdam (50): $7.8 million (2008) $128/SF (61K SF) 55 West (30): $5.3 million (2006) $132/SF (40K SF) Graphic Arts Lofts (40): $6.3 million (2006) $129/SF (49K SF) New Construction Auburn (54): $11 million (2010)* $200/SF (55K SF) Woodward-Willis (11): $6.5 million (2010)* $224/SF (29K SF)
10
AMSTERDAM R
TECHTOWN
BURROUGHS YORK
PIQUETTE
RPE HARPER
MEDBURY
ANTOINETTE
New Amsterdam Lofts DC: $128/SF MV: $111/SF (Rental)
DRI HENDRIE
PALMER
PALMER
FERRY
9
KIRBY KI
FERRY
ART CENTER
KIRBY
CCS
KIRBY K
CULTURAL DISTRICT
TH WORTH FARNSWOR
K DOUGLASS ED FREDERIC
O TH AR FARNSWOR
TNA T TN UT PUTNAM
WOODBRIDGE
AN OCK HANCOCK
8
OC HA HANCOCK
ELD E FIE GARFIELD
Willys Overland Lofts DC: $126/SF MV: $139-236/SF
CANFIELD C
LLI WILLIS
NE DRINE XANDRI ALEXAN
THIRD
SELDEN
DEN SELDEN
S RS PARSON
BRAINARD
ORT V DAVENP
6
ELIOT SK ERSKINE WATSON WAT
ELLIOT
MSON M IM STIMSON
PETERBORO
PETERBORO
WATSON WILKINS
CHARLOTTE
Ellington Lofts DC: $176/SF MV: $125/SF
MOTOR CITY
FOURTH
ALFRED
SPRUCE PINE HENRY
LEDYARD
SP SPROAT
ADELAIDE
SIBLEY HENRY DE WINDER WIN
ONTCA O MONTCALM
COLUMBIA
M MONTCALM
PLUM
O COLUMBIA
LIZ ELIZABETH
MGM
THIRD
ELIZABETH
ADAMS
LVD
BAGLEY
JO HN
CE
DTE
GRAND CIRCUS PARK
3
ER ME ARM FA
SH HIN GTO NB
MADISON
NT
GRISW SW
CORKTOWN
CBD
RE
ST. ANTOINE
TEMPLE
LOWER CASS
HARLOTTE H CHARLO CH EDMUND PL TEMPLE
BRUSH PARK
BREWSTER ALFRED
ST. ANTOINE
MULLET
WA Y
MIDTOWN
FOREST
FOREST
AVE ARK A PARK P
SECOND
FINANCIAL DISTRICT
SHELBY
N WASHINGTON
Carola Lofts DC: $105/SF MV: $60/SF
WA
ABBOT
STA
TE
CAPITOL PARK
E
FA ER RM
OLD LD
SECOND
CL CLIFFORD
D OA BR
GREEKTOWN
N MO
RANDOLPH H
HOWARD LAFAYETTE
FIRST
CA CAMPUS D MARTIUSILAC S
LD GRISWOLD
RO
BCBS
RT FORT
QU
AR
G ESS NG CONGR LARNED
CONGRESS

RIVERWALK
Right: When comparing inflationadjusted development costs versus current market values, real estate in the CBD, Midtown and New Center developed close to the District Center have tended to retain or increase their market value. Real estate further away from the District Center have seen considerable market value decline since their initial development.
Book Cadillac DC: $240/SF MV: $165-345/SF
96
97
$250
$200
CBD
$175
lopm Deve
500 units
$150 targeted build out (units) financing gap ($/SF)
t rate Marke
300 units $25/SF 300 units $24/SF 300 units $21/SF 300 units $16/SF 300 units $8/SF 300 units
$8.6 Million
$5.8 Million
$9.0 Million
ubsidy ($)
Taking the average market value of existing units and the average development cost produces an estimate of the current financing gap for new market-rate projects throughout the corridor (graph at right). The average development gap for each district is as follows: CBD - $25/SF; Midtown - $40/SF; New Center - $40/SF. Because the TOD Strategy is predicated on building vibrant, walkable districts, development must be located in contiguous areas, adjacent to key assets and amenities to increase market values. This is particularly true in areas that have been negatively affected by recent foreclosures and falling real estate values. For example, real estate values in parts of New Center and the North End have been particularly affected by foreclosures and declining values. In these areas, development will need to be strategically located to build upon the disticts many assets. Successful development projects would likely be located close to Woodward Light Rail, offer unique or historic character, similar to the New Amsterdam and Graphic Arts Lofts developed recently in TechTown, or take advantage of mixed use development on West Grand Boulevard and its proximity to Henry Ford Hospital. Corridor development gap estimate In order to meet the population target goals of the TOD Strategy (i.e. 25,000 new Greater Downtown residents in 10 years), annual residential build-out targets for each district were multiplied times the current market gap by district in order to estimate annual gap subsidy. In year one of the strategy, 300 new CBD residential units at a gap of $25/SF produces a necessary $9.0 million gap subsidy. In Midtown, 200 units at an average gap of $40/SF required subsidy of $8.0 million. In New Center, 150 units at an average gap of $40/SF required subsidy of $6.0 million. Total subsidy for year one build-out of 650 new units requires $23.0 million in gap subsidy. With implementation of the TOD Strategy, market rates should steadily improve over the next ten years so that by years five
Right: Proposed development targets and estimated gap subsidy required for each of the three major Districts. (Right)
d subsidy ($)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
$2.9 Million
$7.6 Million
2017
2018
400 units
2019
2020
2021
$300 Midtown District Build-out Complete 300 units 400 units 200 units $6/SF $3.6 Million 2017 $1.2 Million 2018 200 units 2019 2020 2021
New Center District Build-out Complete 300 units 400 units 150 units $6/SF $2.7 Million 2017 $.9 Million 2018 150 units 2019 2020 2021
Canfield/Cass - Sugar Hill Build-out Complete
$250
$200
MIDTOWN
$150
osts ent C lopm Deve Development Gap $33.2 million
Woodward Light Rail Fully Operational
$100 targeted build out (units) financing gap ($/SF)
Market rate
200 units $40/SF 200 units $39/SF 200 units $35/SF 200 units $28/SF 200 units $18/SF
$8.0 Million
2012
2013
2014
2015
$5.6 Million
$7.8 Million
$7.0 Million
2016
$300 Seward-West Grand Blvd Build-out Complete
$250
$200
NEW CENTER
targeted build out (units) financing gap ($/SF)
$150
osts ent C lopm Deve Development Gap $25.0 million
$100
Market rate
150 units $40/SF
150 units $39/SF
150 units $35/SF
150 units $28/SF
$6.0 Million
$5.9 Million
$5.3 Million
required subsidy ($)
2012
2013
2014
2015
$4.2 Million
98
150 units $18/SF
2016
300 units
300 units
500 units
Development Gap $33.9 million
600 units
ent C
osts
CBD District Build-out Complete
$300
3.4 tod strategy funding/phasing
Woodward/Capitol Park Build-out Complete
99

Greater Downtown Strategy

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Greater Downtown Strategy

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

greater downtown tod strategy

1.0 Understanding the Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor

2.0 Building a Shared Vision

3.0 The Greater Downtown TOD Strategy

4.0 Action Plans

1.0 Understanding the Greater Downtown Woodward Corridor

Opportunity is TOD? Active Plans

1.3 Incorporating 1.4 National 1.5 The 1.6 The

Challenge Greater Downtown Today

Draft for review and comment

Draft for review and comment

greater downtown tod strategy

1.1 understanding the opportunity

CHANDLER CLAY SMITH

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM

LOTHRO LOTH OP LOTHROP

MILWA AU AU UK KEE K EE MILWAUKEE BALTIMORE BALTIM MORE M RE E

AMST AMSTER AMSTERD STER RDAM RDA R AM M

WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY

KIRBY BY RBY IRBY KIRBY KIRB

K CK NCOCK HAN HANCOC

COCK COCK NC NCOCK HANCOC

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER

T RT ORT PORT VENPO V AV A AVENP D DA DAVEN

N SON MSON MSO STIMSO

K E SK S RSK ERSKIN PETERBORO

BRUSH WATSON PARK

SPRUCE PINE HENRY

LOWER LE CASS LEDYARD

SPROAT ADELAIDE Y EY SIBLEY HENRY N R IN WI WINDE

M LM CALM CA TC NT MON MONTCALM MON

M ONTCALM ONTC MONTCALM

BIA MB UMBIA COLUMBIA COLUMBIA COL

MGM/DTE ELIZABETH ELIZA ELIZ ZA AB BETH B BET ETH

ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT H TH BETH ZAB ELIZABET ELIZABE ELIZ ELIZAB

ON N TON NGTO HINGTO SHING WASH W WASH

RAN R ANDOLPH NDOL RANDOLPH LPH H

O D FO LIFFO LIFFO CLIFFOR CLIFFO C CLIFF

MULLET CLINTON MB OMB MACO M MACOM

E OE O ROE ONRO ON MONRO M MONR MO GREEKTOWN

ND OND SECO SECO

R RESS GRESS G CONG LARNED

COBO/ JOE LOUIS

RESS RESS GR G CONG

Draft for review and comment

Draft for review and comment

greater downtown tod strategy

1.1 understanding the opportunity

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM

New Center/Northend Key Statistics

NEW CENTER PARK MILWAUKEE

Midtown Key Statistics

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER

ERSKINE PETERBORO WATSON CHARLOTTE EDMUND PL

TEMPLE ALFRED SPROAT ADELAIDE

SPRUCE PINE HENRY

SIBLEY HENRY WINDER

GRAND CIRCUS PARK

CA CAMPUS DIL AC MARTIUS SQ

Population: 5,287 Households: 3,352 Employees: 67,812 Sports Aendance: 3,776,801

MULLET CLINTON MACOMB MONROE

CBD Key Statistics

COBO HART PLAZA RENAISSANCE CENTER

M-1 Corridor Key Statistics