Printable View
You do understand that the suburban sprawl pattern is very much unsustainable, right? Density allows for services and protection to be delivered at much more efficiently, dollar and man power wise. A place like Clarkston might have amazing, huge homes, but the fact that they are a mile apart makes every trash pickup that much more expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
so what exactly do we consider suburban sprawl in DYES? Anything past 15 mile? Anything beyond the near surrounding areas of 696 and past 96/275? Is Warren a sprawlberg? How about Farmington Hills? I dont really consider areas like West Bloomfield and Commerce sprawl. People like lakes. Like to boat and like their kids to be able to swim. You cant reasonably expect areas like this to remain undeveloped
Just because people like to live on lakes doesn't mean it's not sprawl. And not everyone in WB and Commerce live on lakes, many live in the subdivisionsQuote:
Originally Posted by rex
Urban sprawl is the type of development that is low-density and auto-centric. Warren, Farmington Hills, northern parts of Royal Oak, Bloomfield Hills, and Livonia are the earliest examples of sprawl we have in the region. Post World War II to the 1970s.
West Bloomfield, Rochester Hills, Macomb Twp, Washington, Commerce, Novi, and Canton are all examples of the second wave of sprawl development in Metro Detroit. [[1980s-early 2000s)
South Lyon and Brighton are good examples of a third wave. [[2000s)
My great-grandparents used to have a summer cottage on Union Lake when they were living in Highland Park, the dense urban suburb it was. When most people in the metro area lived inside of Detroit. The during college I met a girl who lived on that lake!
So yes, all those examples are sprawl. They all share the same characteristics, just built at different times.
All cities have suburbs. If you can ride your bike to city limits in less that 15 minutes you arent living in suburban sprawl.
This is true. Urban sprawl is an American problem. But I think Detroit's sprawl is being criticized because it's unwarranted. We have been stagnant for 40 years and yet we continue to build. But God forbid we put in place zoning limits cause that's "big government" or "anti-freedom". No, it's common sense rezoning in order not to spread resources too far, too inefficiently, and too much. You pull a rubber band hard enough, you'll brake it in two.Quote:
Originally Posted by rex
It's not crime or fleeing anything. Rural property on OR beyond the "edge" of already developed locations offer more home for less. Period. When I found my last house in Oxford it was all about the Benjamins and how far they would go. We could have got a 3 bedroom bungalow from the 50's in Royal Oak, a 20 year colonial needing renovations in Rochester or a new home on a large lot in Oxford. The extra 15-20 minutes it took to get places was worth it to us. Now, even Oxford is built up and people are looking at Lapeer.
"Rural property on OR beyond the "edge" of already developed locations offer more home for less. Period."
But many of those people wanting the "rural" lifestyle also want the shopping, fast food restaurants, etc. that they had from where they previously lived. Many also want city style services. Every township that has grown with sprawl development has also seen their tax rates go up significantly. Want low taxes? Move somewhere that is protecting the farms from development. Otherwise, as everyone else moves out to your "rural" area, taxes are going up.
At first glance it seems so. Except consider that at the same time farm houses are being vacated all over the country as large corporate farms gobble up small family farms and rural towns lose population.Quote:
Originally Posted by motz
I probably shouldn't bring this up but in France equivalents to the Brewster Project largely full of immigrants are built in a suburban ring around central cities. Better off French citizens who can afford to move away from crime and having their cars torched flee to the central cities. Maybe that would work here too.
The fact remains that 82% of our population expansion comes from immigration policy and all these people have to live somewhere. If we stack everyone, there will be more of a need for more restaurants, parks, and other recreational opportunities than with single family housing. That too is an offsetting form of sprawl. Besides more recreation, a larger population needs more schools, stores, traffic lanes and everything else.
There are cities like Minneapolis where the central city is thriving and full of yuppies. Condos are going up all over with grocery stores, restaurants, and a Target filling their needs. The problem is that when their one or two children get to be school age, the local public schools do not meet these parents' standards and they reluctantly head to the suburbs and contribute a bit to the sprawl.
Crime aside, there is no reason Detroit can't have a similar renaissance with its existing infrastructure, blank slate, and cheap realty prices to lure people back. The motive should be a carrot though. People will come back when they see something they want like Minneapolis yuppies have. Maybe if the federal government would shrink its housing assistance outside of central cities, central cities would benefit and save taxpayer money used to feed the sprawl.
That is why suburban sprawl needs to slow down and stop And rebuild areas that are damage for over 40 years.
Our population is expanding exponentially, and we are becoming homogenized. Mile roads mean nothing. This is irreversible. RELAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another problem with the sprawl in Metro Detroit is that it's been done in such a desperate, slipshod manner that the region has absolute shit for parks and libraries. There are a few exceptions, but by and large the public spaces here are grimly utilitarian and often treated as unfortunate necessities. In another metropolitan area, the Eleanor and Esdel Ford Estate would be a jewel of a park. Yet here, it's a bunch of elitist claptrap that 90% of the metro isn't aware exists, and you have to pay to get in.
Part of the can be pointed back to the people running the estate, but it's a reflection of our own values, really. We have a poor regional identity. Most people are concerned about how far away they can move from people they don't like, and how they can get out of paying for anything that doesn't immediately benefit themselves.
I haven't been gone from Metro Detroit for long and the changes are already disturbing to me. My three favorite parks to visit now have three separate permits/admission fees/whatever: Metro Beach, Madison Heights/Red Oaks Nature Center, and Belle Isle. I mean seriously, what the hell Detroit? And let's not forget the time I fell in love with the view at Belanger Park in River Rouge, only to find out you have to pay for that during peak season, too. Then there's the Grosse Pointe "parks" nonsense.
It's pathetic. Metro Detroit needs to get its act together.
Macomb township hustles sprawler
*I tried to put it in all caps but the site must be set up not to let me. :)
It was more than 20 years ago......try about 36 years for the start of things. In the SW corner, the subs were going up strong between Hayes Heydenreich to just north of 21 Mi. starting in 1978. By 1982, that quadrant was getting pretty full and pushing further east & north.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
Former co-worker & fishing buddy spent his entire life on 21 just off Romeo Plank. Born on 21, built a ranch on 21 in the 50's, and died there a few years back. He commented to me in 1980 that he would know almost everyone who would drive by the house forever.....but forever ended in 1977. Lakeside went up, and everything followed.
I lived in one of those early subs for a couple years in 1979. I was never so happy to get hell out of there.
I've been on the East Coast for a while now and there is a completely different philosophy about public space compared to Metro Detroit. Out here public spaces are generally used as development catalysts. Many of the most expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan are formed around either a park or some type of public square/circle/plaza. Many of the late 20th century urban renewal efforts in New York were also centered around public squares/plazas [[the most famous being Times Square).Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
In Metro Detroit, it seems to be just the opposite. Public spaces are not very highly valued for fear of attracting the wrong element. I think it's played a role in the the region becoming as insular as it is...
Not sure what it has to do with Macomb and sprawl, but Belle Isle is looking pretty good these days, well worth the $11.00 park pass. As far as the private parks, the whole lake shore up to the thumb is pretty much the same. Looks like they have their act together to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
Traffic in Macomb absolutely sucks. You can have it. I'll take an older home on a city lot any day.
I waited for the polls to close today before posting this on this thread to remove any thoughts of political motivation. Many people in the DMA really could care less about sprawl but this thread is an exception, many posters seem to care deeply about the effects of suburban sprawl. I would like to throw some data out and get some opinions. Post#, muni, mills.
#1 Macomb Twp 25.73
#2 Shelby Twp. 32.66
#4 Plymouth Twp 29.52
#6 Brighton 38.04
Milford 32.33
#21 Brownstown Twp. 33.55
#26 Oakland Twp. 29.79
#57 Rochester 35.38
#65 Northville Twp. 33.43
#69 Commerce Twp. 30.33
Detroit. 67.74
School districts chosen at random
https://treas-secure.state.mi.us/pte...TEstimator.asp
With everyone of those sprawly communities having a property tax rate of less than half of Detroit's how could anyone expect the new housing to go anywhere but out? New housing is a fact of life in America, a certain amount of people will always want, desire, and buy/build new housing. Passing a law that stops it is really unrealistic. Wouldn't the entire metro area and state benifit from a flat property tax just to level the playing field on the finacial incentive on where to build new housing? Even the city of Detroit realized that they were cutting off their nose to spite their face by coming up with the NEZ. Hypotheticals on muni bond market collapse or federal funds vanishing is only wishful thinking to stop sprawl. Personal tax reform in this state that included a flat property tax would give older communities at least a fighting chance.
Veddddy interesting! I looked up some little burgs up in Da Yoopee and they were being hit for 45 to 50 mils in property taxes while Macomb Twp is around 29 mils.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
These rates aren't set based on geography. The difference in tax millages is explained by: 1) the property values and 2) the services required.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
A $100,000 house in Detroit is going to have a far lower tax bill than a $400,000 McMansion in Macomb Township. And thanks to the beauty of self-segregation, folks in Macomb Township don't have to pay for services required by those dang stinking Poors.
Nobody said anything against new housing. There is no universal law that requires all new housing to be constructed on farmland.Quote:
New housing is a fact of life in America, a certain amount of people will always want, desire, and buy/build new housing. Passing a law that stops it is really unrealistic.
How does a level tax rate level the playing field? If you want to level the playing field, let the people in Macomb Township [[and elsewhere) start contributing funding to social services for the needy, disabled, and elderly who disproportionately reside in the City of Detroit. Moving further into the sticks shouldn't excuse anyone from social responsibility.Quote:
Wouldn't the entire metro area and state benifit from a flat property tax just to level the playing field on the finacial incentive on where to build new housing?
I also think that taking autonomy away from local governments could hamstring local governments and prevent them from providing the types of services they'd like to provide. Your notion is just way too simplistic to be taken seriously.
Quote:
Not sure what it has to do with Macomb and sprawl, but Belle Isle is looking pretty good these days, well worth the $11.00 park pass. As far as the private parks, the whole lake shore up to the thumb is pretty much the same. Looks like they have their act together to me.
I suppose I was taking a more general view of sprawl. Basically, when you have unchecked development coupled with a stagnant population, you can't afford quality public spaces, particularly on a regional level. It's ridiculous that we're getting the point where you can't have high quality parks in Metro Detroit without having to charge an entrance fee. To me, that's a pretty big failure.
Once you live somewhere with great parks and public libraries, you'll realize that paying to enter Belle Isle and sitting inside Barnes & Noble and getting badgered to buy a membership card and a Nook isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Unfortunately in this day and age people have so little pride they destroy public parks in their own neighborhoods. Even the free parks in Macomb are subject to this. The "private" parks you mention above are the nicest I've been in for a long time. I don't have to live on a sprawl zone or near a university to enjoy them. And as far as Belle Isle goes, I gladly pay for the policing to keep it clean and safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
There is very little "development" where I live and the population could be called stagnant. I swear I drive next to the same cars up the freeway every morning. It's awesome. Yesterday I took a detour through Macomb and got stuck in miles of traffic on roads that would need to be 8 lanes wide to handle everyone. It sucked. I thought I was in hell. Not sure why everyone is moving up there in droves but they can have it.
100k Detroit $3387Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
400k Macomb Twp $5146 [[Utica schools)
1800 bucks doesn't seem like a "far" difference to me
Want to see a real far difference how about:
400k Detroit $13548
https://treas-secure.state.mi.us/pte...TEstimator.asp
As long as the rate of tax is 1/2 to 1/3 on the outer ring sprawl will never stop or even slow... If the rate of tax where the same everywhere a lot more folks would think.... Is it worth it to drive all they way out here? Its just math. Most people use it every day, smart people use it even more.
I'm not suggesting at all that the revenue for government be slashed or cut. What I am saying is that the rent tax in Michigan is crushing property values all over the state making it less desirable for people to want to move here or even stay, so we need to come up with a 21st century tax code that doesn't tax the crap out of rent in urban areas and reward rural areas with low rents.
I didn't even get into Non-Homestead. That's the biggest screw job ever thought up for people that don't own.
Unrealistic expectation and not how things work. Who should be moving into these 40 year neglected neighborhoods? People with good jobs and a little $$$? People with kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpwrangler
Nonsense. Tons of other metropolitan areas have park systems that are both superior to Metro Detroit's AND free. By a Metro Detroiter's logic, Central Park should be impossible.
Fact of the matter is that we have a lack of pride on all sides in Metro Detroit. That is the real problem. There are tons of Detroiters that give up and stop caring. There are tons of suburbanites that'd rather sell their homes for the shiny new thing with low taxes then put in the hard work of actually caring about a real neighborhood.
And then there are the exceptions, but not enough. In Metro Detroit, you just have a region where the balance has shifted too far in favor of those that could care less. And the core of the problem, IMO, isn't in Detroit, or Ferndale, Birmingham, or Grosse Pointe. Its in shameless "cities" like Warren, Troy, Sterling Heights, Novi, Southfield, and Waterford. Those people have a lot of money, but don't care about anything besides themselves. They're just counting the days until they're in Lyon Township, Macomb Township, or Rochester Hills. And once they're in those cities, they're counting the days until the next level of sprawl hits.
They won't be happy until their properties are townships unto themselves, all the roads are freeways paid for by the federal government, and their kids are bused into school districts they barely pay for.
Central Park WOULD be impossible in Detroit. There is not enough money and not enough cops to keep it safe. Things are changing though, but slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by nain rouge
I doubt people in Indian Village or other nice parts of Detroit want to live in sprawlville or they would for what they spend fixing those homes. Ypsilanti and Royal Oak have nice parks that residents care about. Grosse Pointe and Other communities have beautiful parks that are free to residents. And it's not all "rich people". Homes in GPW start in the $60s and rent is $500 in some areas.
Its a matter of pride and priorities. Nonsense? Hardly. I could easily move to Macomb but I'd rather walk to the park than drive in that stupid traffic to some mega park. I chose to be on a street with neighbors close to everything than sit in a pack of cars doing 80 to get to Eastern Market.
You can can always see what you want to see, but it's not all negative down here. The more people flee up to Macomb, the less traffic there is to work in the morning.
Realistically, the number of $400k houses in Detroit is very small. Even the $100k number is high in most cases. So your argument is quite academic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit
Do people look at tax rates? Sure. But do they make every life-changing decision based strictly on tax millages? I'm of the opinion that if taxes are the only factor a person considers, then he's not exactly living the kind of life that I'd enjoy.
Macomb's taxes will go up in due time as its infrastructure ages and requires repair and replacement, and the next wave of sprawl development lures current residents away. As has been argued on numerous threads, these phenomenon aren't constrained to the City of Detroit. It's only a matter of time before the entire metropolis implodes on itself due to the cost of infrastructure maintenance...
...which ties in precisely with the "free parks" argument. Yeah, some people think that private parks are so nice, since they keep out Those People. But if you're ever going to have a civilized PUBLIC domain, parks are a pretty good way to start. It seems more and more, however, that everyone in Southeast Michigan would just prefer to self-segregate to their own bubbles. And frankly, that's a miserable and wholly uninteresting way to live.