The best US plazas. (CityNerd)

What is Detroit like? (CityNerd)

This is an open thread.

43 Replies to “Sunday Movies: Plazas & Detroit”

  1. One of the problems with Pioneer Courthouse Square is also systemic to the rest of downtown Portland: an over emphasis on office space.

    Cities in Europe tend to have a mixture of residential built into the central downtown space. These plazas therefore are much closer to where people live.

    For a better example in Portland of how these places add to the community around them, you have to go to places like the South Park Blocks or Tanner Springs Park.

    However, with residential around those places, there wouldn’t be the ability to have the evening concerts like Pioneer Courthouse Square gets. Eg, imagine this happening in your average American residential area every few weeks:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G_FpYci5pWM

    1. As an occasional visitor, I thought that greater Downtown Portland was better at mixed land use when compared to other Downtowns. Even places like San Francisco and Chicago have sizable areas that are mostly vertical office parks with little else happening. In contrast, I never seemed to walk more than two or three blocks in Downtown Portland before encountering a mix of land uses.

      It’s seemingly easier to talk about station area TOD then central core area land use mix. Most zoning codes don’t exclude high rise residential or other land uses from downtowns. So office-heavy downtowns evolve not from government regulation as much as they evolve due to market forces.

      I think the poster child of this is the role of the Bon Marché/ Macy’s building in Downtown Seattle. Remember when it was 8 or 9 floors of great retail 20 years ago? Remember how the store was directly accessible from the bus tunnel, meaning that you could enter without getting wet? And you could get lost spending a hour or two looking at almost everything you could buy for yourself? Retail declined and Amazon needed more office space, so its land use changed.

      For me, that single land use change ruined much of the downtown retail experience. It triggered other retailers leaving. It even made the streets in front of new residential buildings feel more barren with lower foot traffic. Ironically, it’s starting to house more retail again as Amazon pulls back on office space.

      I’m not sure what local governments can do to promote better mixed-use downtowns. The buildings to me are mere generic physical assets that can be adapted for various market conditions. The reasons that people gather change radically in a few decades as new lifestyles evolve for new generations. The only sure thing seems to be the ever-changing nature of trends.

      That’s not to say that local governments should be completely laissez-faire. They should be nimble to respond to market forces in a healthy way.

      1. > The buildings to me are mere generic physical assets that can be adapted for various market conditions.

        Not exactly—office buildings and retail are not well suited to residential conversions, and vice versa.

        > The reasons that people gather change radically in a few decades as new lifestyles evolve for new generations. The only sure thing seems to be the ever-changing nature of trends.

        People always need a place to live. I think that’s really the one constant. Yes, it’s possible overall demand might decrease. Still, I think it’s the best bet you can make, and a good case for incentivizing housing in the CBD.

      2. Here’s a density map:
        https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=878eee11841d4a4bb90c3abe3ee0b18d
        Note:

        • a significant section of downtown Portland has almost 0 residential density.

        • the area to the west of the grey area is no more dense than the Hawthorne and Belmont areas on the east side of the river, where a fair amount of space is single family houses.

        • the real residential density is north and south of the downtown core, which is where Puoneer Courthouse Square is located.

        • some of the density shown in downtown is an artifact of the data being by zip code. An awful lot of the residential density is west of I-405, but the map spreads it into the office desert area.

      3. Yes certainly building elements like plumbing and fire codes are factors in building reuse and adaptability. That’s especially true for housing.

        However, mixed use is a much broader concept than merely residential vs non-residential. The original comment from Glenn here is specifically concerned about too much office space in Downtown Portland — and not generic non-residential space.

        Building residential buildings with ground floor adaptable commercial space is also not a guarantee of achieving healthy mixed use.

        The overall new high-rise tower marketplace worldwide has pretty much abandoned the office-only approach, including proposed new buildings for Downtown Portland. We’ve sern a century of that mindset – but it’s only been a century and not a millennium — and it started to fade about 10 or 20 years ago.

      4. When I looked at satellite map of Portland for the first time, it impressed me that this city seems to have pretty big city center type of area. Even though only the area west of Williamette River is generally considered downtown, big chunk of blocks east of the river has the kind of small urban downtown land use. They are not necessarily high density, but they are definitely not single family land use and the density is consistent from block to block until it reaches SE 12th.

        This reminds of Savannah, Georgia, which is another place with relatively big urban core for the size economy the metro area accommodates.

      5. The stuff between the river and about 12th to 28th (depending on the area) is eccentric. They didn’t enforce zoning as much there, and the area went through multiple stages of industrial, commercial, and residential redevelopment. Eg, you’ll see 1910s immigrant apartment buildings next to 1960s poured concrete industrial, with commercial storefront buildings from the 1950s.

        Between about 12th and 60th, it’s mostly residential, with a lot of single family, but with a number of apartments mixed in. There’s also random 1910s commercial storefronts now converted to residential. A lot of the 1910s to 1930s apartments over retail have been replaced with more modern versions of the same along SE Belmont and Division, with a number of the older buildings along Hawthorne remaining.

        After looking at a building on SE 12th around 2002, my employer’s owner remarked “I didn’t think they had unlimited zoning like this any more. You could have a toxic chemical explosives plant downstairs and house 300 immigrants upstairs and still be within the zoning.”

        A bunch of places, such as St Johns, Woodstock, Albina, and others were once separate cities, and in fact everything east of the river to about 50th or so was once East Portland, with places such as Lents being other cities beyond East Portland. The Great Consolidation happened in 1891, but even now the old downtowns you notice remain commercial areas for those places.

        Virtually nothing from 1891 is left, so it doesn’t make sense that the different city plans would still have an impact today. I think the biggest thing was the 1950s concept of the urban core being commercial only. As you note, there’s a huge difference between Portland’s office space dominant center and the extremely diverse mix east of the river, where this concept wasn’t applied.

  2. 2 line Easter update: rode out of RTS around 11. Three-car train. My car was moderately full coming out of RTS and slowly filled up until, leaving Mercer, we were standing room only – not particularly crowded standing but still it looked like every seat was full.

    Really pleasantly surprised to see this amount of uptake so quickly. For my part, the 545 would have been a good deal faster to get where I was going (the convention center) but the 8-10 minute frequency on Link cleared it.

    1. The high frequency of Link combined with the new views while crossing Lake Washington are likely drawing recreational riders!

      In an alternate universe where the lake crossing was fully in a subway tunnel, I suspect its recreational draw would be greatly diminished.

      Aerial and surface light rail segments are often considered negatives by neighborhood NIMBY’s. They want transit to be in deep, bored subways. The popularity of Link today on Easter Sunday partly because it offers views flies in the face of that.

      I point to the notable lack of considering aerial and surface segments for West Seattle, Ballard, SLU and Downtown. You would think that most people in a city that embraces the relic of the monorail would already understand the lesson. But many don’t or at least forgot about it.

      1. The NIMBY- and car-brain is pretty wild. It seems like the loudest recent constituency against elevated alignments are actually myopic business owners, who have consistently forces a system with a 100+ year lifetime to have worse alignments in order to mitigate just a few years of disruption.

        In my foamer opinion, there’s something so wonderful about flying above dense city streets that’s a real pleasure. I really like the CID to Judkins Park segment for this reason—it’s one of the few Link alignments that’s both above ground that feels somewhat urban.

      2. “In my foamer opinion, there’s something so wonderful about flying above dense city streets that’s a real pleasure.”

        Yes I think so too! Aerial transit gets an unfairly bum rap.

        Heck just look at riding into Bellevue Downtown Station on Link! Approaching from Wilburton is exciting while approaching via tunnel from East Main is meh.

        If West Seattle Link ever gets built, riders will gush about the awesomeness of the Duwamish bridge crossing views — and say very little about the more expensive per mile bored tunnel segment west of 35th.

        Unless there’s some reason like steep terrain (such as Beacon Hill) or inadequate width, I think a surface or aerial option should be presented in any EIS.

      3. Some of the problem is the noise, but quieter elevated structures are possible.

      4. The aerial view through central Bellevue shows just how much land use is devoted to parking lots. It’s actually rather shocking.

      5. “Some of the problem is the noise, but quieter elevated structures are possible.”

        Yeah I think there are people who have visited noisy elevated rail built in Chicago and New York about a century ago , and believe that Link noise will be the same way.

      6. Link is a lot louder than it could be. Using concrete plinths and mounting the rails directly to the concrete structure has many advantages, but it means the structure magnifies the sound.

        Some of the older elevated lines in Europe, Japan or even a few in the USA where ballasted track is put on the structure are far quieter. We need something that emulates that while having the advantages of plinth construction.

        Something like the vibration isolators ST put in the UW tunnel might make a huge difference.

      7. My sister-in-law lives off of Rainier about where the Graham infill station might go. That’s not elevated but you don’t hear Link so much as you feel it. Very low vibration that’s like a mini earthquake every time a train goes by. If they build the station you’ll probably hear the bells and warnings.

    2. Afternoon update: left Westlake a little after 4 and the train was quite busy. Not standing room only but close. And it filled up a little more at IDC and over the lake. Very nice to see.

  3. I’m going to a MI City Council meeting arguing that MI should stop funding 630 and reinvest it into 204 what evidence do we have that MI is directly paying metro for 630?

    2. I think a redirection of resources from the 630 to the 204 would be good for overall ridership. But, it would mean that, for some people, a one-seat ride becomes a three-seat ride, so be prepared for pushback. Ultimately, though, the number of people that would benefit from a more frequent 204 (at least during rush hour) should far exceed the number of people who ride the 630, as the 630 is narrowly tailored to First Hill commuters, while a more frequent 204 would benefit Mercer Island residents headed to literally anywhere in Seattle, or even Bellevue or Microsoft (since you can take the 2-line either direction).

      Another wrinkle is, some of the people who currently ride the 630 may be driving in from off-island (with the backup option of taking the 550 to G-line if they miss the bus), so it’s unclear how much of the 630’s ridership, which Mercer Island is paying for, is even from the island. By contrast, the 204’s local nature means that virtually the entire ridership consists of Mercer Island residents.

  4. Today I was walking along Thomas St between Taylor and fifth and noticed that half of the road surface had been dug up, and after looking it up to see what it was for, I couldn’t find anything.
    Does anyone know what this is for?

  5. Downtown Detroit today is nothing like Downtown Detroit 10-15 years ago. I found out that when I visited back there in 2023.
    A mixed-use district formed around Little Caesar Arena and part of Woodward Ave had become an outdoor mall.

    When I went to my first auto show 10 years ago, Downtown has nothing but cold mid-1900s high-rise and a little condo. Controlled demolition was done for many historic buildings in downtown around 2010 including the old Hudson building. Before 2015, the part of Woodward Ave full of mall brands today only had some random shops. It is really between 2015-2017 when coordinated effort was made to transform it into a retail strip. 2017 is when mall business had already been in decline, so it was quite a surprise to me Detroit was able to create a mall using mostly existing streets and storefront in downtown which is not favorite location for many mall brands. I don’t know what kind of deal Detroit cut with those brands and I wonder if Seattle’s retail corridor will still have a second chance. It seems like most fast fashion brands are less interested in maintaining a large number of physical stores on these days.

  6. I think I went to Little Ceaser’s in the 1980s when I was a kid but I haven’t seen it since. I thought it was long gone. The company website says there’s now one at 10439 16th Avenue SW, and one each in Burien, Renton, and Kent. I’ve completely forgotten what it tastes like. Has anyone been to it recently?

    Our favorite pizza places as kids were Pizza & Pipes, and Godfathers. I don’t remember where they were or what happened to them. I think Little Ceasers was in that shopping center at 140th & Bel-Red.

    But the best pizza I had was Yazzalino’s in Crossroads in elementary school. The closest to it I’ve found since is Romio’s and Olympia.

    1. Little Caesar’s is ubiquitous in other parts of the US. Their new headquarters building on Woodward wasn’t called out in the video, but along with the Huntington(?) Bank HQ it was part of filling in the entire western streetwall on the Fox Theater block.

      Unfortunately the east side is still entirely surface parking for the baseball stadium.

    2. It is like Subway, not bad but also not popular.
      Even in Michigan, I think their own Dominos is more popular.

    3. The same company owns Dominos and Little Ceaser’s? Dominos seemed to kind of replace Little Ceaser’s here in the late 80s, at least looking back to my high school vs college experiences. We may have still had Little Ceasers’ sometimes then and a few years afterward, but eventually everybody was using Dominos.

      I’ve never personally bought delivery pizza; it was always other people or groups who did. So I guess I just gradually migrated from those groups, and instead went to Pagliacci’s and my friends’ Greek pizza restaurants, and later Romio’s, Olympia, Pegasus, and Credo.

  7. “ Real time bus arrival and tracking information may not be available due to intermittent technical issues. Refer to scheduled times. · Due to technical problems, real time bus information in Metro’s Online Trip Planner and Text for Departures tool may not show results.”

    Another day without correct real-time info.

  8. Anybody have a ride report for East Link Monday 04/6? This is the latest open thread. I’ll ride it tomorrow morning at Oh dark 30. I said 2 car trains would be more than enough for East Link for quite a while. So far I’ve been dead wrong and boarder line having to eat my words on the Bel-Red P&R having excess capacity. I will add ST seems to be enforcing the transit only parking with a vengeance at Bel-Red P&R; good on them.

    [Ed. Corrected date per author’s intention.]

    2. Today’s 2 Line was busier than last Monday but not as busy as Tue-Thu (same situation on 550 post-pandemic. The headway was very weird. I only waited for 5 minutes to get my train but the train after was 15-min away.
      There was good amount of boardings at South Bellevue. Not sure if they were driving to the park and ride to have some fun in Downtown Seattle in the evening or they go to work/college along at Eastgate.
      My train made a compete stop at the ramp right before transit tunnel for at least 2 minutes.

      1. Today’s 2 Line was busier than last Monday but not as busy as Tue-Thu

        Thanks Mike for fixing my post(s). Monday, like Friday tend to be light with the new paradigm of working 3/5.

        If things are getting busier then that’s good for East Link ridership. If it was just sight seers then you’d expect things to start to drop off. If it’s real ridership then the opposite; people are starting to switch.

      2. It would also be interesting to know how full the South Bellevue P&R is weekdays.

  9. This is on the System Expansion Committee agenda:

    D. Resolution No. R2026-09: An action to authorize phase transfers within the West Seattle Link Extension and Ballard Link Extension project budgets to fund the execution of a Lease Agreement for a Central Corridor Integrated Project Management Office. – Materials Forthcoming

    E. Motion No. M2026-16: Authorizing the chief executive officer to execute a contract modification with HNTB Corporation to provide project development services for the Ballard Link Extension project in the amount of $16,277,000, with a 20% contingency of $3,255,400 totaling
    $19,532,400, for a new total authorized contract amount not to exceed $345,638,236. –Materials Forthcoming

    1. So if I read this right, HNTB has a contract for $16M to do nothing but propose sh#t that isn’t funded. I’m really close to retiring . I’d like some of that action. Not like that’s going to happen since I don’t play the game.

      1. > So if I read this right, HNTB has a contract for $16M to do nothing but propose sh#t that isn’t funded. I’m really close to retiring . I’d like some of that action. Not like that’s going to happen since I don’t play the game.

        haha no you actually didn’t read it correctly. the contract is actually up to $345,638,236 or about a third of a billion. sound transit has just increased it by another 16 million. they’ll probably reach half a billion by 2030.

        Which is quite impressive as you noted neither project has started yet

      2. Because the West Seattle and Ballard extension projects began development nine years ago in 2017 and have produced detail plans and the EIS work, the price tag does not surprise me. We are all waiting for the Ballard EIS any week, by the way.

        However, given how te Enterprise Initiative is supposedly underway and how vacant office space is rife in Downtown Seattle, why is there this Central Corridor Integrated Project Management Office lease being set up? It reads to me that ST has no intention of pausing West Seattle or DSTT2 by establishing this office.

        It’s worth noting that HNTB has been doing the project cost estimating for both projects. Those estimates have swung wildly up and down.

        Finally, it’s worth noting that HNTB is an important funder of the Transportation Choices Coalition, which led the “Build The Damn Trains” effort.

      3. This kind of contract(especially thing called project management or project development) probably isn’t lump sum.
        So if ST didn’t give them direction to move forward, they cannot charge to it. 16M is just the capped the value they can spend at most.

      4. HNTB would be doing planning work the board asks it to do, not coming up with proposals out of the blue. The decisions and planning stages ST is in now also require various studies to support them.

        It’s unclear what this “Integrated Project Management Office” is. I’d assume its beneficial or typical bureaucratic wheel-spinning, not something malicious until proven.

        It’s usually the full board that votes on resolutions, so I doubt the System Expansion Committee could do it on its own. So there will probably be information reports at both the System Expansion Committee meeting and the next board meeting (April 23), and that may explain what this integration office is, why it’s needed, and where it would be located.

      5. Guys, I’m not questioning the appropriateness of the work or the billing method. They seem reasonable to me.

        I’m instead noting the timing. These appear to be awards that should come after the decisions the Enterprise Initiative decisions have already been made — not before.

        Certainly, major contracts have escape clauses. So it’s not a done deal even if it passes. To me, these contracts are merely just another indicator that ST fully intends to blow ST3 money on West Seattle and try to get as far north up DSTT2 as they can. And if that happens, 1 Line riders get screwed with bad transfers for a century and riders north of the end station won’t get Link for at least a few decades (especially Ballard).

        And it’s highlighting that ST has no interest in delaying things even several months to look at major cost saving ideas like automation. And HNTB is happy to oblige because they want their big checks ASAP.

      6. yeah automation is where it’s at. They need to hit pause on west seattle, and start over with the idea of an automated train going from ballard through downtown to west seattle.

        forget the idea of splitting the spine. let the riders from the north end keep their one seat ride to the airport. let the riders from the southend keep their access to stadium station. let the riders from bellevue keep the ability to transfer at chinatown to go to the airport.

        Splitting the spine like they are planning blows everything up, costs too much money, requires more transfers, and makes all transfers more inconvenient.

        Sometime you just have to admit your mistakes and start over.

  10. ST has a survey for updating the ST3 System Plan in the Enterprise Initiative. The System Plan update will probably be how ST decides what to build. The announcement says feedback submitted by the May 28 board meeting will be given to boardmembers. You might want to do it before the April 23 board meeting or the April 9 System Expansion meeting, in case it might help influence how staff shape the May proposals. The board intends to vote on any Enterprise Initiative changes in May, which probably means the April and May board meetings and committee meetings will have progress reports and information.

    I filled out the survey thus:

    – First question: rank four strategies. I put “passenger experience” as #1.

    – Second question: rank four strategies. I put “delete projects” as #1.

    – First text box: “Good train-to-train transfers downtown are essential! The
    preferred alternative has too long transfer walks/levels between the
    two tunnels, far worse than voters were led to believe. Even if that’s
    built, this will hinder it from reaching its potential. Cancel the
    second tunnel and make Ballard-Westlake an automated line. That would
    serve passengers better and save a lot of money, and it would avoid
    two-tunnel transfers going from Rainier Valley to the U-District, or
    from the Eastside to the airport.”

    The one or two text boxes after that I didn’t write down my responses, but within it I told the board to evaluate each project based on what’s best for passengers. I said that forcing the long two-tunnel transfers for Rainier Valley-UW and Eastside-airport corridor trip would make transit worse for passengers, and the Tacoma, Everett, and Issaquah extensions/line will have little to no benefit for passengers over BRT or frequent express bus feeders. The essential part of the Link network is the current Lynnwood-Redmond-Federal Way extent, and has always been. So don’t spend tens of billions of dollars of cost additions on things that would make transit worse or have little benefit. And I said, down escalators are important!

  11. The question about what Detroit is like really caught my attention; I’m always fascinated by CityNerd’s take on different urban environments. Their deep dives into city character are always so insightful.

Comments are closed.