Why does Detroit have no row houses or brownstones?!

I never gave it much thought until today, but it occurred to me that Detroit has basically no row houses or brownstones. Almost every other city has them. Most Midwestern cities have an abundance of them winding tightly through very narrow streets. Consider Pittsburgh for example, the entire city is full of them. In fact, it seems that row houses are the dominate housing type in Pitt. Ohio is the same story, and Chicago has miles of brownstones... Detroit is just as old as those cities, and all of these neighborhoods [[Detroit's included) were built when streetcars were the primary mode of transit. So, what's the deal? Why did spaced-apart, single family homes located on very wide streets dominate housing in Detroit? I heard somewhere that it had to do with taxes on street frontage, but I don't entirely buy that.... It still wouldn't explain why Detroit's streets are so much wider and the houses so far apart compared to other cities?

It's really interesting to use Google streets to travel through Pittsburgh and look at how their housing is all nestled together on streets as wide as alleys with a mix of little bars and and cafes tucked away into little nooks. The format even holds true when you get far away from Pitt's downtown. I think Detroit has a built-in disadvantage in terms of urban renewal because of our spread out housing style. We aren't built for density or mass transit as well as other cities. I think single family houses also get blighted faster because all it takes is one homeowner to go belly up and he takes an entire house down, whereas several adjoining neighbors all have to tank at the same time to cause a series of row houses to become abandoned and blighted.

Here are a few pics of some of Pitt's nicer row houses: http://www.city-data.com/forum/pitts...-pictures.html

People in Detroit were smarter.

Pennsylvania [[the state time forgot) and Maryland's cities have row houses. There are apartments on Leverette in Corktown that fit the description, and there used to be some row house kind of things on John R north of I-94.
One thing Detroit always prided itself on was the percentage of residents who owned stand-alone homes.

The auto jobs paid so well that people here could afford homes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSUguy

The auto jobs paid so well that people here could afford homes

---

That sounds very over-simplified, but sometimes the truth ain't complicated, and I would say there's a good chance that, while a further discussion may be fun & interesting, we could probably fold up the tent right now, the question having been answered.

West Village has at least 8 examples, in various architectural styles, of terraces within it's boundaries. One of these is in typical rowhouse style, the rest more upscale. There are also some rowhouses in the Hubbard Farms and on Lafayette along the I-75 Southbound corridor.

Detroit had more land to build on. New York, Philadelphia and some parts of Maryland were designed during the 1700s where most of the settlers from Europe made their homes. Those cities were very populated at the time for the rest of the country were still underdevelope such as Detroit. Detroit, in it's heyday, were a much better place to live in than New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. Detroiters didn't have to live on top of one another. We had our bustling downtown area. Each neighborhood had their own business retail district. Greenfield/Grand River, Gratiot/Van Dyke, 7 mile Livernois, Warren/Conners. Curtis/Wyoming, etc. Other cities at that time didn't have business/neighborhood districts the way that Detroit had. Detroit had rail cars that could take you from Detroit to Kalamazoo. We had massive land mass to work with.

Detroit don'e have a lot of Row houses and brownstones for these reasons:

As the industrial boomtowns sprouted up in the midwest, developers don't want their sites look like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Balitmore, Washington D.C. and Jersey Shore cities and classic to Medieval European-like cities. The developers want a to build REAL homes with lots of space and big backyards. First they started out with grid style walkabout neighborhoods. Next add in the pre-victorian style colonials, bungalows and ranches to give a country atmosphere. Later brick houses and familt flats for the middle class are being built this time away from the Detroit's lower east and west side. Middle class families who own those rows of family flats want to double or tripple their income by letting their tenants [[within their own race) live in.

When the suburbs developed its started in the inner rings following the industry boom of the 1900 to 1930. Dearborn, areas of Royal Oak Twp. [[ later became the suburbs of Ferndale, Hazel Park, Royal Oak, Huntington Woods, Berkley, and Pleasant Ridge) The industry boom also sprouted Warren along Van Dyke Rd. Center Line, East Detroit [[ Eastpointe) St. Clair Shores, The 5 Grosse Pointe and Lochmoor areas. Also other inner ring suburbs in Wayne County like Redford TWP, Dearborn TWP, Nakin Mills TWP. Clarenceville, Livonia TWP. with its Rosedale Gardens, Then you have Downriver suburbs like River Rouge, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, Southgate, Wyandotte and Taylor. These inner ring suburbs don't have a type of Brownstone and row houses because the people wanted a country like lifestyle with wide open spaces and plenty of trees and critters roaming about.

Detroit and its suburbs remains today cities of neighborhoods. We don't need no Browntowns [[Chicago-like Greystones, or other St. Louis like victorian baby mansions to impress the people.)

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

Keep Detroit classic and utilized.

Neda, I miss you so.

Flats were more common in Detroit, much like Chicago. But I have seen rowhouses in Brush Park, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them were lost to neglect or "urban renewal".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravine

That sounds very over-simplified, but sometimes the truth ain't complicated, and I would say there's a good chance that, while a further discussion may be fun & interesting, we could probably fold up the tent right now, the question having been answered.

---

It was very over-simplified and also very wrong. Brownstones in places like New York were originally homes for rich people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stasu1213

Detroit, in it's heyday, were a much better place to live in than New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. Detroiters didn't have to live on top of one another.

---

I've seen 3000 sf rowhouses sell for upwards of $1 million. Seems to me that people don't necessarily mind "living on top of one another".

The rowhouse would be expected to have been the housing style of choice in 18th and 19th century residential construction in Detroit, as this was the predominant technology at the time [[kind of how plastic Pulte homes are predominant now). Given that Detroit has very very few buildings remaining from the pre-20th century, I would not be the least bit shocked if they were all bulldozed in the name of "progress".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Given that Detroit has very very few buildings remaining from the pre-20th century, I would not be the least bit shocked if they were all bulldozed in the name of "progress".

---

Yeah, that's my theory since there are examples of rowhouses in Detroit, but they are fragmented examples.

I would not go so far as to say they are none, but very few were developed.

Detroit's history of ribbon farm development required separate housing from the start. That became the overwhelming pattern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

I would not go so far as to say they are none, but very few were developed.

Detroit's history of ribbon farm development required separate housing from the start. That became the overwhelming pattern.

---

It's not as if Detroit went from "all-ribbbon-farms" to "20th century manufacturing metropolis" with hundreds of thousands of residents overnight. Granted, the population boom really didn't happen until the 20th century, so I'm sure that any rowhouse stock would have been geographically limited when compared to the present-day boundaries of the city. But it's a pretty good bet that the pre-20th century "urban" population lived in rowhouses in the neighborhoods clustered around downtown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Brownstones in places like New York were originally homes for rich people.

---

Yeah, that's what I thought. Poor people lived in tenement-style homes.

I just don't understand how/why only developers in Detroit made a conscious decision to not build row houses and brownstones while developers in every other city built them literally in abundance. Even San Francisco is known for its row houses.

Quote:

---

I think single family houses also get blighted faster because all it takes is one homeowner to go belly up and he takes an entire house down,

---

I think that the type of residential development has little to do with the mechanisms of blight. I see two primary factors that are both exacerbated by a third.
1) in addition to the neighborhood retail districts that were located at major intersections, most of Detroit's major thoroughfares were lined with local commercial and office uses and the residential neighborhoods were tucked behind them. Once the income levels and/or population started to drop in the adjacent neighborhoods, there would no longer be enough nearby spendable dollars to support that level of commercial uses.
2) the type of ownership has a lot more to do with resistance to blight than the physical form of the buildings. Owner-occupied buildings are usually maintained the best.
3) property tax millage rates that are higher than anywhere else in the region tend to drive down the value of a property and undermine the ability of a landlord to command comparable rents and perform comparable levels of maintenance.

Commercial decline and blight along the adjacent major roads typically initiated the blight that would eventually infect the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Blight would then accelerate in the absence of effective ordinance enforcement, particularly as the percentage of owner-occupied properties declined.

Detroit's never been space constricted like many eastern cities and Pitt are [[Pittsburgh's in the mountains). Detroit also had abundant wood sources nearby and had lumber barons as prominent residents. Timber frame houses are faster and less expensive to build during boom times. Detroit also had a lot of duplexes, four squares, and apartment buildings instead of rowhouses - again because space was available. Also, many of Detroit's newly arrived didn't come from big cities but rather from agricultural situations, and between potato patch Pingree and work a garden Ford people here have been historically encouraged to DIY to supplement household incomes.

Chicago also has a lot of single family dwellings and duplexes. As a matter of fact there are distinct house styles called "Detroit bungalows" and "Chicago bungalows". There's even a Chicago Bungalow Association dedicated to preserving Chicago-style bungalows in Chicago [[can't join if yours is a Detroit-style).

1. Detroit's "building boom" came after the development of the electric streetcar so that housing could be more spread out.

2. Much of the inner city housing stock was eliminated by two phenomena.

a. Demolition to accommodate industrial expansion during the boom years.

b. Demolitions to build the Lodge and the Chrysler in the inner city area. [[look at some old pictures of Hastings St).

3. While inner city Detroit had few row houses, there were a lot of single houses on very narrow lots in the city. These houses had the floor plans of row houses, but were free standing with narrow lanes on each side.

Anyone consider how difficult it was to move 100's of tons of cut stone in the 19th and early 20th Century ? :)

The vast majority of Michigan's mitten is covered in 100's of feet of sand, boulders and rubble left over from the glaciers. With the exception of areas along the Ohio border we simply do not have the material resources to build homes out of cut stone.

After the major fires of the mid 1800's few would have considered building a row house out of wood.

The memory of the 1805 fire also probably played a role in the preference for detached housing. Unfortunately the gaps between the houses were often small enough that fire still spreads quickly - check out Highland Park where the eaves seem like they could touch each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

Anyone consider how difficult it was to move 100's of tons of cut stone in the 19th and early 20th Century ? :)

The vast majority of Michigan's mitten is covered in 100's of feet of sand, boulders and rubble left over from the glaciers. With the exception of areas along the Ohio border we simply do not have the material resources to build homes out of cut stone.

---

row houses and brownstones are brick, not cut stone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

Anyone consider how difficult it was to move 100's of tons of cut stone in the 19th and early 20th Century ? :)

---

So no one in Detroit had the technology to make bricks and other masonry products? You're singularly focused on one material [[of many) that may be used for external cladding. The focus of the thread is the form of the structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpup

row houses and brownstones are brick, not cut stone

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownstone :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So no one in Detroit had the technology to make bricks and other masonry products? You're singularly focused on one material [[of many) that may be used for external cladding. The focus of the thread is the form of the structure.

---

I did not realize any thread on DYES has a "focus"...:D


The lack of easily sourced material is one of the reasons we don't see that style of building much in Michigan. I didn't say it was the only reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

I did not realize any thread on DYES has a "focus"...:D


The lack of easily sourced material is one of the reasons we don't see that style of building much in Michigan. I didn't say it was the only reason.

---

Building materials have nothing to do with lot sizes or the shape of the building. You could build rowhouses out of reinforced concrete, if you wanted to do so.

You can't tell me that Detroit didn't have masonry construction in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

I did not realize any thread on DYES has a "focus"...:D


The lack of easily sourced material is one of the reasons we don't see that style of building much in Michigan. I didn't say it was the only reason.

---

Brownstone was available in Michigan. The reason use of brownstone stopped [[and is no longer used - today's materials are mimics) is that it's a very soft sandstone prone to failure.

You just need to open your eyes to see that there was no lack of stone used for building here - just typically NOT in smaller housing projects.

For a peek at the differing types of residential structures that existed side-by-side on the edge of downtown Detroit just one hundred years ago, Shorpy.com just happens to give us today this circa 1910 photo of three residential structures on Center St., just west of the Harmonie Club building [[which is not shown).

Here is the comment I've submitted to Shorpy regarding this photo:

The Milner Hotel now occupies the spot where this building once stood [Google Street View].

According to the 1910 Detroit Polk City Directory, the building at the right in the 1910 photo was 31 Center St. and was occupied by Henry M. Catton. The building at the left was the "Central Apartments" at 35-41 Center St. 33 Center St. was the "Central Annex" and you can see that there is a connection between the Annex and the larger Central Apartments building. Residing at 33 Center St. were Caroline M. McNeil, James E. Clark, Mrs. Julia Clark [[milliner), Harry Goldstein, Leon E. Bastendorf, Mrs. Nellie Frazier and John M. Caswell. Perhaps one of the residents of the Annex gained notoriety, prompting the photograph of their residence?

Townhomes, brownstones, and row house blocks abound in Detroit, but are often nearly gone or in the worst shape, since they are often the oldest, or newer failed attempts. I must say, this is the type of housing I am interested in in the city, which makes other cities that much more desirable. Not surprisingly, this is the type of housing that sells for higher prices in Detroit.

Some great examples that you may be over looking [[the list gets better as you go, but the beginning is worth checking out).;

1. Detroit's oldest brownstone located in the central business district.
2. A beautiful little home near Cass Park.
3. Nicely restored section of brownstones in Brush Park, with tons of newer condo "town homes" next door and across the street.
4. Some more brownstones in Brush Park. These ones are in need of some TLC.
5. I know these are more like mini apartments, but am not sure exactly what to call them. I love them though. Notice the little gated walk into the back yard/gardens that lie behind this building. Each of these two are owned by different owners. One owner takes very good care of his building, the other is an absent landlord.
6. Another block of brownstones up in Midtown/New Center. I love the curving front steps on these ones. These are what I would love to live in, or rather live in what they used to be.
7. That same block as #6, only from down the block, with nice infill all around it.
8. Not row houses, but a beautifully done section of small urban commercial buildings on Woodward, in New Center.
9. Some newer town homes located in New Center, near Boston Edison.
10. While plenty are not exactly row houses, town homes, or brown stones, many are in this quaint a highly desirable well manicured block in Corktown. This is one of my favorite neighborhoods in the City of Detroit.
11. Another nice block in Corktown.
12. Another near perfect block in Corktown.
13. Another nice block in Corktown.
14. Another nice block in Corktown.
15. Another nice block in Corktown.
16. Actually, I could sit here all day and show you examples. This one is in Mexican Town's Clark Park area. Note that many single family homes in Detroit are more urban than your typical home, as only a tiny sidewalk or less is in between homes. There are no driveways along side these homes.
17. I'll stop for now with this last addition. This street has little chance of coming back, but looks like it was once a beautiful place to live. This last one leaves you with the fabulous and tragic ruins of Detroit.

More of those odd apartments [[pictured above in #5), that are actually all over the city. These ones are in a much more desolate area. Obviously, these must have been regular construction types at one time or another. Link: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...29.34,,0,-6.57

Thank you for your work in putting together that collection. Nice! I recall that last edition [[see below) from when I was in Jr. High as my school was around the corner from those home. They were nice and very quaint. I recall the brick work and nice layout. Too bad it's now a ruin...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

1. I'll stop for now with this last addition. This street has little chance of coming back, but looks like it was once a beautiful place to live. This last one leaves you with the fabulous and tragic ruins of Detroit.

---

Off-topic, here, with alla this Corktown stuff, but what the hell; in case the owner is a DY member, I'm going to toss this in:

The white house on the corner of Church, one block east of Rosa Parks Blvd., is fabulous, to my eyes. The damn thing is enormous, and the exterior & property are very well kept-up.

Sometimes, I drive by it on my way home from work, just to look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

Townhomes, brownstones, and row house blocks abound in Detroit, but are often nearly gone or in the worst shape, since they are often the oldest, or newer failed attempts. I must say, this is the type of housing I am interested in in the city, which makes other cities that much more desirable. Not surprisingly, this is the type of housing that sells for higher prices in Detroit.

Some great examples that you may be over looking [[the list gets better as you go, but the beginning is worth checking out).;

1. Detroit's oldest brownstone located in the central business district.
2. A beautiful little home near Cass Park.
3. Nicely restored section of brownstones in Brush Park, with tons of newer condo "town homes" next door and across the street.
4. Some more brownstones in Brush Park. These ones are in need of some TLC.
5. I know these are more like mini apartments, but am not sure exactly what to call them. I love them though. Notice the little gated walk into the back yard/gardens that lie behind this building. Each of these two are owned by different owners. One owner takes very good care of his building, the other is an absent landlord.
6. Another block of brownstones up in Midtown/New Center. I love the curving front steps on these ones. These are what I would love to live in, or rather live in what they used to be.
7. That same block as #6, only from down the block, with nice infill all around it.
8. Not row houses, but a beautifully done section of small urban commercial buildings on Woodward, in New Center.
9. Some newer town homes located in New Center, near Boston Edison.
10. While plenty are not exactly row houses, town homes, or brown stones, many are in this quaint a highly desirable well manicured block in Corktown. This is one of my favorite neighborhoods in the City of Detroit.
11. Another nice block in Corktown.
12. Another near perfect block in Corktown.
13. Another nice block in Corktown.
14. Another nice block in Corktown.
15. Another nice block in Corktown.
16. Actually, I could sit here all day and show you examples. This one is in Mexican Town's Clark Park area. Note that many single family homes in Detroit are more urban than your typical home, as only a tiny sidewalk or less is in between homes. There are no driveways along side these homes.
17. I'll stop for now with this last addition. This street has little chance of coming back, but looks like it was once a beautiful place to live. This last one leaves you with the fabulous and tragic ruins of Detroit.

---

Great post! Those are definitely some examples of Detroit-style brownstones and row houses. Perhaps the answer to my original question is that once upon a time, Detroit had many row houses and brownstones, but somewhere down the line they were replaced with single family dwellings or demolished for other reasons. It is pretty obvious that where you see a series of two row houses side-by-side, such as the ones on John R., that at one time the whole street must have been lined with them. I really dig those original brownstones in Brush Park, so I hope they preserve those vacant ones before they go the way of the castle house. Also, your #17 example is Spaulding Court. There is a group of people putting together a plan to rehab it. Google "Friends of Spaulding Court" and a bunch of stuff will come up, including YouTube Videos, fundraisers they have on the premises, what their plan is, how to get involved, etc. There are also lots of photos on Flickr.com.

Thanks for posting those pics - grew up in the 'Burgh and neighborhoods like that are something that was 'missing' when we moved here decades years ago. [[The flat and featureless 'moonscape' of SE MI literally gave me vertigo for the first few weeks I was here. Didn't help that we moved into a treeless dirt McSub near 12 oaks)

Cheap/easy-to-clear land, cheap gas, and neighborhoods built to accomodate our #1 export explain why everything is so spread out. Never thought about the rowhouses existing before the fires, and much later, expressway clearance though. Makes sense. Rowhouses in the 40s and 50s must have been considered a yucky residue.

Tying it in to the 'thicker' thread... it occured to me today that our region may not be 'confused' as to the value of a real city, or a hapless victim of car-centric design - it's just that we've never been able to stand each other. It's been essential that Detroiters stay as far away from each other as possible. [[with two cars in between as a buffer, if possible).

The neighborhoods that had that style of abutting buildings with porches are largely gone. There were a few, for instance, where the new casino is, where Plum Street used to be. When you have large developments looking for land near downtown, you're going to lose most of them, because they were mostly confined to downtown and the area around it.

And, as others have noted, even so, Detroit tended much more toward the large lot, wide street, discrete house manner of development, especially post-1915.

We've also got the Luxury Brownstones at Clark Estates to look forward to.

from DetroitFunk:
http://www.detroitfunk.com/?p=3921

Er... maybe not...

Detroitdad....thanks a lot for taking the time to cobble together those links! Lil off topic....I once read that all the Brownstone material for the homes in NYC came from the UP. Brownstone and Sandstone are identical right?

sorry not good at fancy posting but this is my favorite overlooked terrace building in detroit. It has stood proud since 1895. Granted when I think of row house I think of individual houses with connected walls. This has all brick common side walls with uniform common face. Still each unit stand 3 tall with walk up stone porches, stone lower level and are roughly 12 feet wide each.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...71.33,,0,-0.82

Are all of the attached homes/condos in Grosse Pointe City on and near the St. Paul/Rivard area considered row houses? Or are they just apartment units? If they are considered row houses, my guess is that this would be the largest accummulation of them in metro Detroit.... as well as the finest.

Simply wonderful! Imagine built in 1895... Nice brick work indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detroitind

sorry not good at fancy posting but this is my favorite overlooked terrace building in detroit. It has stood proud since 1895. Granted when I think of row house I think of individual houses with connected walls. This has all brick common side walls with uniform common face. Still each unit stand 3 tall with walk up stone porches, stone lower level and are roughly 12 feet wide each.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...71.33,,0,-0.82

---

Here is a thread from 2 years ago about this topic. In the middle of the page you will see pictures that I posted of rowhouse-type housing in Dexter-Davison, North End, New Center, and Russell-Woods.

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/125438/128718.html

There are also two LONG sets of 1920's rowhouse-type housing in Dearborn on Schaefer street. They are both on the east side of Schaefer in the vicinity of Warren Av/Ford Road/Michigan Ave.

Detroit is a "new" city in terms of its built environment. Alot of the cities with rowhomes were mostly built up in the late 1800's very early 1900's. Load bearing brick construction was the norm and land was also at a premium.

Many Michigan towns were fortunate [[and looking back today...maybe unfortunate) that the lumber industry was so popular. Wood was readily available, so that's why you see alot of detached single family housing of wood construction. You'd never want to build rowhomes out of wood, just think of what would happen if there were a fire.

Detroit actually does not have rowhouses [[by architectural definition) Detroit has duplexes and multi unit buildings. And yes, I've looked at all the images posted. For example, I can think of one in Brush Park and several in Southwest Detroit that "kind of look like" rowhouses but are in reality just one single building subdivided. They don't have party wall construction. You can't just demolish one and be left with the rest. I suppose you could try, but you'd end up with a mess...like the building on westminster and woodward that had to be heavily patched up on the side + the building [[and many others like it in Detroit) has a unified attic, which is not characteristic of rowhouse architecture

If you want to see some real nice rowhouses you aren't too far. Many Ohio cities have some rich rowhouses architecture...Cincinnati being the midwest capitol of this type of construction. Chicago has some, but we are more known for our greystone, brick 3 flats, and courtyard buildings. Chicago's East Garfield Park is loaded with tons of great rowhouses of varying architecture

Quantum Theory: Unlike any other place, Detroit was jolted by sudden massive success, and the nouveau bourgeoisie, with cars, cash, and cornfields aplenty, built houses, and basically leaped over the whole brownstone phase.

Nice photos MB... and nice to see homes and interest here re. the west side, especially areas I rarely here mentioned on DYes. Ewals Circle has been long known for its beautiful brick homes, Russell Woods too. Too bad many of these are now ruins. Thanks for the photos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterblaster

Here is a thread from 2 years ago about this topic. In the middle of the page you will see pictures that I posted of rowhouse-type housing in Dexter-Davison, North End, New Center, and Russell-Woods.

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/125438/128718.html

---

Quote:

---

wolverine/If you want to see some real nice rowhouses you aren't too far. Many Ohio cities have some rich rowhouses architecture...Cincinnati being the midwest capitol of this type of construction. Chicago has some, but we are more known for our greystone, brick 3 flats, and courtyard buildings. Chicago's East Garfield Park is loaded with tons of great rowhouses of varying architecture

---

Chicago is the one american city that most resembles Montreal for its plex architecture, especially the walkups with wrought iron staircases and just the general feel of the residential districts plus the commercial streets. I do enjoy the density of a lot of Detroit architecture though. A lot of these big 3 story homes have plenty space for two families and deserve to remain a vital art of a newer Detroit. The density can come from rehabs that makes more out of the existing structures or form new projects sensitive to the style of Detroits old homes.
One of the denser and neglected features of Detroit's built environment are its commercial streets. I think that they have suffered more than the residential streets through attrition. For those who have the mobility it seems, shopping can be done far and away from their neighborhoods. It would be really nice to see more small businesses take hold on the streets that are near higher density neighborhoods. I know its hard to tackle all the issues affecting Detroit, but I do think small businesses lining up those streets will do a lot to improve immediate quality of life issues including employment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

Detroit actually does not have rowhouses [[by architectural definition) Detroit has duplexes and multi unit buildings. And yes, I've looked at all the images posted. For example, I can think of one in Brush Park and several in Southwest Detroit that "kind of look like" rowhouses but are in reality just one single building subdivided. They don't have party wall construction. You can't just demolish one and be left with the rest. I suppose you could try, but you'd end up with a mess...like the building on westminster and woodward that had to be heavily patched up on the side + the building [[and many others like it in Detroit) has a unified attic, which is not characteristic of rowhouse architecture

---

Thank you for pointing out that distinction. I was thinking that "those aren't really row houses" as I was looking through the threads.

Can somebody explain one thing to me. It traditional row houses or other attached but independent structures, are there two separate walls that are either touching or are only separated by a tiny space, or is there one wall that supports both buildings?

If there are two separate walls, what did they do to keep them plumb and how did the manage the minute crevice between them?

Traditionally, two walls. Each house could stand on its own if its neighbor was demolished. The type of stuff you see going up nowadays around Detroit either has cmu block fire separation or a heavy stud wall with a ton of gypsum board to meet life safety requirements. In those cases it's a single wall. After all these, buildings are trying to emulate old fashioned towne house architecture.

If there was a gap between two brick walls, it was never much of a big deal back then....at least now-a-days we know more. Walls weren't all that high, and yes at times the result of settling would cause one home to possibly lean against another. I've seen demolitions where they deliberately left the exterior wall of a demolished home remaining to support another.

If I remember Detroit was built as an affordable single family home city and without decent mass transit and the auto being primary transportation a driveway was necessary so now rows could be built.

The boom was in the 50's so wood frame construction was the thing and it helped to make it affordable.

Many of the greystones in Chicago used to be single family homes for the wealthy they just got converted into upper/lower apts or condos.

Finally Detroit burned,burned and burned the rest were torn or fell down after being vacant since 1968.

They did a decent job of building some wood frame/brick face walk ups in the Old Brush Park/Comerica Park vicinity.

In my opinion-being that I used to be an Arch/Urban planning major. This is one of the reasons why I want to move east coast for grad school and beyond. As much as I love and appreciate Detroit's style of 'having your own backyard'. I see many styles of those homes of friends of mine who live inner-ring suburbs and i'd rather see brownstones/rowhouses in many [[not all) of Detroits neighborhoods rather then the 1950's built ranch style homes I have seen. Because it still gives me a thought might be in the suburbs, and with all do respect to anybody. It might sound shallow probably to say or think that but I do feel in some of the city's neighborhoods it does not feel urban enough for someone my age.

Go back to grammer school first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Umbound

In my opinion-being that I used to be an Arch/Urban planning major. This is one of the reasons why I want to move east coast for grad school and beyond. As much as I love and appreciate Detroit's style of 'having your own backyard'. I see many styles of those homes of friends of mine who live inner-ring suburbs and i'd rather see brownstones/rowhouses in many [[not all) of Detroits neighborhoods rather then the 1950's built ranch style homes I have seen. Because it still gives me a thought might be in the suburbs, and with all do respect to anybody. It might sound shallow probably to say or think that but I do feel in some of the city's neighborhoods it does not feel urban enough for someone my age.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tallboy66

The boom was in the 50's so wood frame construction was the thing and it helped to make it affordable.

---

The boom for Detroit was 1915 to 1929 with another boom 1941 to 1954.

By 1954, the city was "built out" and the suburban explosion began north of 8 Mile and west of Telegraph.

Good point Wolverine, I didn't realize. I figured brown stones were different [[?). Although, I do wonder if the first two in my list were parts of row house blocks of some sort, at one point. Today, maybe they are the last ones left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

Traditionally, two walls. Each house could stand on its own if its neighbor was demolished. The type of stuff you see going up nowadays around Detroit either has cmu block fire separation or a heavy stud wall with a ton of gypsum board to meet life safety requirements. In those cases it's a single wall. After all these, buildings are trying to emulate old fashioned towne house architecture.

If there was a gap between two brick walls, it was never much of a big deal back then....at least now-a-days we know more. Walls weren't all that high, and yes at times the result of settling would cause one home to possibly lean against another. I've seen demolitions where they deliberately left the exterior wall of a demolished home remaining to support another.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pushtina

We've also got the Luxury Brownstones at Clark Estates to look forward to.

from DetroitFunk:
http://www.detroitfunk.com/?p=3921

Er... maybe not...

---

No thanks to from the Alan Greenspan's 'How to own a bank by owning a house' sheme along with liar loans, CDO's, synthetic CDO's and mortage companies just giving out too much money to anyone who had little or no income, caused the housing boom to collapse within a blinking of a eye. Now lots of brownfields meant for supercondos and mega mansions aren't going to happen in inner city ghettohoods of Detroit, not in 30 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjlj

Go back to grammer school first.

---

Grammar school

Detroitdad,

Technically though the houses you classify as brownstones are not brownstones. A brownstone is made of a kind of stone not brick. There arent that many of those around, and graystones maybe a hundred to one in ratio to brownstones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canuck

Detroitdad,

Technically though the houses you classify as brownstones are not brownstones. A brownstone is made of a kind of stone not brick. There arent that many of those around, and graystones maybe a hundred to one in ratio to brownstones.

---

I think the original intent of the thread was referring to older row houses either with common walls, separate walls or closely spaced free-standing houses with entrances right off the sidewalk using "brownstone" as a generic term for these houses as opposed to houses on lots with side and front setbacks.

I wonder how many houses in other cities are referred to as "brownstones" that may not actually be made of brown colored sandstone.

Hermod,

True enough, I found an article about brownstones on a street in Brooklyn which showed only redbrick row houses. In Montreal, you will usually see one brownstone sandwiched between graystones or brickclad houses. There are also the yellow sandstone houses that are very nice when cleaned-up. The trouble with these types of stones is they deteriorate from the pollution and humidity due to their higher porosity. Some of the details seem to wither faster as if they were made of clay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpup

brownstones are brick, not cut stone

---

News to the people of Connecticut where the brown stone is quarried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Umbound

In my opinion-being that I used to be an Arch/Urban planning major. This is one of the reasons why I want to move east coast for grad school and beyond. As much as I love and appreciate Detroit's style of 'having your own backyard'. I see many styles of those homes of friends of mine who live inner-ring suburbs and i'd rather see brownstones/rowhouses in many [[not all) of Detroits neighborhoods rather then the 1950's built ranch style homes I have seen. Because it still gives me a thought might be in the suburbs, and with all do respect to anybody. It might sound shallow probably to say or think that but I do feel in some of the city's neighborhoods it does not feel urban enough for someone my age.

---

One of the fundemental problems with Detroit... It is not urban enough. I have heard time and time again the similarities between Detroit and Berlin after WWII or lower Manhattan in the 60s-80s. Sure there are many artists reusing buildings, but the difference is that even though NYC and Berlin were f-ed up, they still had the physical infrastructure in place that cities need to function-- transit and density. Cities just don't work without these ingredients that Detroit is missing. Until we develop density and mass transit in at least one core corridor [[Woodward), all efforts to revive the city will likely fail or do little in the face of declining population, declining tax revenue and deteriorating infrastructure. It is also important to note this is a regional problem not a Detroit only problem. Our region is far too sprawling to be sustainable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

Traditionally, two walls. Each house could stand on its own if its neighbor was demolished. The type of stuff you see going up nowadays around Detroit either has cmu block fire separation or a heavy stud wall with a ton of gypsum board to meet life safety requirements. In those cases it's a single wall.

---

Rowhouse construction using two walls between each adjoining residence would be a local idiosyncracy, then. Typical rowhouse construction uses shared masonry walls [[known as "party walls"), with the wood floor framing supported on the walls. The front and rear walls are nonstructural, and are tied back to the floor diaphragms. Typical demolition procedures would remove the floor framing first anyway, so "leaving" a party wall behind is not such a big deal. The party walls are required to be able to remain structurally sound with bracing from only one side.

And usually, in older construction, engineering design was not what it is today, so you have extra factors of safety as opposed to the present where [[especially in single-family homes) everything is designed to the gnats ass to save every penny possible for the builder.

I'm not a fan of the newer claptrap wood-framed walls in "townhouse" construction. Noise from your neighbors [[think of Lawrence in "Office Space") becomes an irritant that will never go away.

Very interesting discussion, especially since I only recently stumbled upon historic rowhouses in Corktown. If you want to check them out, they're just off the Lodge not far from Howard Street. [[You can actually see the back of them from the Lodge.)

I'm no expert on the subject, but I think these were homes for lower- and middle-class workers, probably not what the original poster had in mind for this discussion. It seemed worth pointing out, though. Here's a link to a blog post I wrote:

http://fromthekage.blogspot.com/2010...-detroits.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by casscorridor

One of the fundemental problems with Detroit... It is not urban enough. I have heard time and time again the similarities between Detroit and Berlin after WWII or lower Manhattan in the 60s-80s. Sure there are many artists reusing buildings, but the difference is that even though NYC and Berlin were f-ed up, they still had the physical infrastructure in place that cities need to function-- transit and density. Cities just don't work without these ingredients that Detroit is missing. Until we develop density and mass transit in at least one core corridor [[Woodward), all efforts to revive the city will likely fail or do little in the face of declining population, declining tax revenue and deteriorating infrastructure. It is also important to note this is a regional problem not a Detroit only problem. Our region is far too sprawling to be sustainable.

---

It is interesting to ponder whether Detroit would have experienced such intense sprawl if the city had more traditional urban buildings like brownstones and row houses. It's possible that people may have rejected a lot of the sprawl but for the absence of denser housing choices in the city. What I mean is that, had Detroit had more traditional urban housing, people might have been willing to gentrify those areas early on as opposed to building new housing in the suburbs. However, because both Detroit and the suburbs consist mostly of single-family homes, Detroit had to compete directly with the suburbs and did not have the advantage of a diversity of housing options that most other cities do. I think the city would have fared better over the years if it had more urban housing to compete with the lack of such options in the suburbs. You can't underestimate the value of desirable urban housing.

Nope - not gonna happen. The 1950s post-war trend was Levittowns everywhere. Cities were places to escape from, unless you were already wealthy enough to also have a weekend/country place.

The only ones who wanted to move to the big city were the country bumpkins who thought cities represented sophistication and having 'made it.' Otherwise all this citylove stuff y'all are spewing is a recent development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpup

Nope - not gonna happen. The 1950s post-war trend was Levittowns everywhere. Cities were places to escape from, unless you were already wealthy enough to also have a weekend/country place.

The only ones who wanted to move to the big city were the country bumpkins who thought cities represented sophistication and having 'made it.' Otherwise all this citylove stuff y'all are spewing is a recent development.

---

And by "recent", I presume you mean the 5000 years of civilization aside from 1945-1990 in the United States of America.

Wow. For anybody who thinks that homes that share common walls don't tend to last longer, look at this neighborhood.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en...d2445720d6413d

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Rowhouse construction using two walls between each adjoining residence would be a local idiosyncracy, then. Typical rowhouse construction uses shared masonry walls [[known as "party walls"), with the wood floor framing supported on the walls. The front and rear walls are nonstructural, and are tied back to the floor diaphragms. Typical demolition procedures would remove the floor framing first anyway, so "leaving" a party wall behind is not such a big deal. The party walls are required to be able to remain structurally sound with bracing from only one side.

And usually, in older construction, engineering design was not what it is today, so you have extra factors of safety as opposed to the present where [[especially in single-family homes) everything is designed to the gnats ass to save every penny possible for the builder.

I'm not a fan of the newer claptrap wood-framed walls in "townhouse" construction. Noise from your neighbors [[think of Lawrence in "Office Space") becomes an irritant that will never go away.

---

The row houses were construct like the row businesses that once line the avenues of Detroit. Take the Lafayette Building for example; It was connected to the Arcade Bar. It was razed but the Arcade bar is still intact with it's own wall. Many row retail and restaurants in Detroit were constructed similar to rowhouses in New York and other cities. They had a party wall that seperated each other. The duplexes on Morross, Greenfield, Hayes, Evergreen, and other streets have party walls that divide them.

Just to make it clear, one reason to explain the longevity of a structure's life depends on type of construction. Is it load bearing masonry or is wood with brick exterior? The building you posted is in fact load bearing masonry, and it has some advantages.

If I were to make the argument "brick houses last longer than wood houses." What do you define as a brick house? Just because the exterior may be clad entirely in brick doesn't make it any more durable than a wood frame house. Why? Because the majority of Detroit's brick housing stock is framed entirely in wood....which is actually holding the brick up. If the wood frame fails, so does the brick exterior. That's why you'll see a good number of stripped houses on the east side with the wood framing being left exposed. A brick home of load bearing construction will stand the test of time alot longer. Take a look at the shells of the homes in Brush Park...load bearing masonry....earlier time period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

Just to make it clear, one reason to explain the longevity of a structure's life depends on type of construction. Is it load bearing masonry or is wood with brick exterior? The building you posted is in fact load bearing masonry, and it has some advantages.

If I were to make the argument "brick houses last longer than wood houses." What do you define as a brick house? Just because the exterior may be clad entirely in brick doesn't make it any more durable than a wood frame house. Why? Because the majority of Detroit's brick housing stock is framed entirely in wood....which is actually holding the brick up. If the wood frame fails, so does the brick exterior. That's why you'll see a good number of stripped houses on the east side with the wood framing being left exposed. A brick home of load bearing construction will stand the test of time alot longer. Take a look at the shells of the homes in Brush Park...load bearing masonry....earlier time period.

---

Would you say that some of these older public schools such as Barbour Middle School, Mackenzie, Cass, are load bearing masonry?

ewald circle off of livernois in either direction has a decent number of rowhouses...most are not attractive, however the nicest is the 2700-2900 block

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...94.72,,0,-2.97

I don't remember which thread it was in, but someone had mentioned prior that Detroit's boom [[10' - 20's) was rich with banks giving loans specific for single family occupancies. I would imagine it would be easier [[then) to convince someone that they were getting their share of the American dream by being able to purchase their own home on their own land.

In Queens, NYC, most of the borough consists of single family homes, most of the same design! I imagine that then, as the country turned into an Industrial Dynasty, the middle class was born. Living in tenements was not a desirable place to be, and many that were there, [[Think Lower East Side, if you know NY) wanted out.

I guess Detroit had a similar scenario. New York grew in the late 1800's as a banking and business powerhouse; at the same time Detroit became the middle class capitol of the country by being the Industrial Powerhouse of the USof A. Banks willing to loan, and builders fulfilling the want for that piece o' the pie.

St. Louis is the midwestern capital of rowhouses, even more so than Cincinnati. We have blocks upon blocks of brick rowhouses and townhouses, both attached and detached. Non-brick housing is incredibly rare in the city. I find many similarities between Detroit and St. Louis, but their residential architecture is definitely not one of them.

Another local example can be found in Walkerville. These row houses are presumably Kahn's....circa 1904. Originally built by Hiram Walker for his employees.....thing was, if you didn't live there, you didn't have a job! In the middle of the block, you'll find two semi-detatched homes for the foreman.

It goes on like this for about 2 blocks, getting less and less detailed as you go. By the time you get to the end of the second block.....people have thrown aluminum siding and crap on them. The 800 block is on the historic register, I beleive.
It's nice that even though they look the same, they really do have their own little details.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...56.91,,0,-1.12

That's a beautiful block in Windsor!

It's truly amazing the difference in condition on the two sides of the river. What policies were in place in Windsor that helped to keep the city beautiful? I notice that if you head away from the river even as far as the northern border of Detroit, in Canada you are in farmland. There must have been some sort of plan in place to keep the city alive instead of the sprawl that has taken place in the Detroit area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtf1972

I notice that if you head away from the river even as far as the northern border of Detroit, in Canada you are in farmland. There must have been some sort of plan in place to keep the city alive instead of the sprawl that has taken place in the Detroit area.

---

You do realize that Detroit has four times as many inhabitants as Windsor, right?

Whoa......it's weird having Windsor described as beautiful! Thanks!
As far as I know, this area has actually been re-genrafied [[sp?) during the 80's, and what you see is nothing short of the effort put in by the home owners. Walkerville, in general was layed out as a garden city by Hiram Walker, and as pretty as it is now, it pales in comparrison to what it was. I'd post a pic, but don't want to go too far OT lol.

Did you mean ......southern border of Detroit? :D
I honestly don't think Windsor has ever been forward thinking enough to have some master plan to cull the sprawl. If you ask me.....it was the great depression. I wouldn't doubt Windsor would be at least twice it's current size, had the depression not come about. There are plenty of massive building plans that never came to be because of it, and you would see a very different skyline.
But....I'm glad we're not too big. Easier to manage, small town/big city feel...it's weird. Besides.....we don't need to be big to impress visitors. People who havn't been here coming down the 401 are so impressed from a distance with our skyline, and I continue letting them think it's great, straight down Ouellette. "My God! What's that fabulous building striaght ahead?!?!" "Oh...that's the Penobscott building....yeah it's a beauty" "Can we go there?" "Sure......why not?"
Then of course, you get to about Wyandotte and start to see the glimmer of water and you're forced to let them know they've been ooooing and aweing Detroit.:)
Hell.....we did it to the Queen! LOL!

But we really have lost all our built heritage. I can't tell you how incredibly jelious I am of the things you have that are in ruin let alone in use.

Also jtf1972.... ....again, I don't mean to go off topic, sorry everyone, but looking at this photo, I'll assume it's from the 20's......we clearly had the rug pulled from under us with the depression. Man....Windsor looks like a frickin' joke! HA!

Attachment 8012


By the looks of things, Detroit was doing everything right. Windsor seems pretty stangnant....did we want it that way? Maybe. We worked and played in your city back then, no need to go all crazy here. In Windsor, you might notice the diagonal line cutting across the city. That's the Essex Terminal Railway.....and the city limits. Actually......there's 3 diagonals, all are railways and the city is bordered by all of them. We didn't do much building past there untill after WW2. If you compare this with a google maps shot....we havn't done too much in the past near century, and that's not really a good thing.



I should note, that regarding the farmland...Essex county has traditionally been Ontario's agricultural heartland. We're not going to eat up topo much of it if we can help it.

Thanks for the cool photo. Really tripped out to not see the Ambassador Bridge which was built in 1930!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magnatomicflux

Also jtf1972.... ....again, I don't mean to go off topic, sorry everyone, but looking at this photo, I'll assume it's from the 20's......we clearly had the rug pulled from under us with the depression. Man....Windsor looks like a frickin' joke! HA!

Attachment 8012

By the looks of things, Detroit was doing everything right. Windsor seems pretty stangnant....did we want it that way? Maybe. We worked and played in your city back then, no need to go all crazy here. In Windsor, you might notice the diagonal line cutting across the city. That's the Essex Terminal Railway.....and the city limits. Actually......there's 3 diagonals, all are railways and the city is bordered by all of them. We didn't do much building past there untill after WW2. If you compare this with a google maps shot....we havn't done too much in the past near century, and that's not really a good thing.

I should note, that regarding the farmland...Essex county has traditionally been Ontario's agricultural heartland. We're not going to eat up topo much of it if we can help it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

The boom for Detroit was 1915 to 1929 with another boom 1941 to 1954.

By 1954, the city was "built out" and the suburban explosion began north of 8 Mile and west of Telegraph.

---

Very well delineated, Hermod. Most people don't realize that there were two boom periods here -- the initial auto-related expansion beginning in the teens, and then the WWII "Arsenal of Democracy"/postwar growth.

The point is that there were rowhouses [[attached housing) in Detroit; however, it was a predominant style in the period just before the city's first boom, so there weren't that many [[per capita) built. Frame two-family flats were cheaper to put up [[and buy or rent), post-1915, to accommodate the influx of blue-collar workers.

As the city aged, redevelopment and attrition took away most of the attached housing from the 1870-1910 period.

Detroit started to become a city of single family homes after the fire of 1805. The use of single family construction was due to the 5000+ square foot lot design in Woodward's plan along with vast expanses of land. What resulted was very little construction of row houses. Later and still today having little concentration of housing units, has become an acute problem with Detroit's ability to effectively create viable mass transportation.

There some beautiful examples in Detroit; wooden ones are predictably rare. My Favorite Detroit Row Houses: First ones that come to mind are the brick beauties on Leverette between 10th & 11th. So beautifully maintained, like stepping back in time. Like many great vintage buildings, don't forget to look up at the roof-line detail. :)

Not to be a stickler for details, but didn't Detroit's boom begin about 1900? The population went from 285,000 to 465,766 between 1900 and 1910, and Ford and GM came into existence during that 10 years, along with many other auto -- and other -- firms,