uncover old rivers in detroit

**szla** · August-11-11, 07:25 PM

I believe the city water department several years ago built a connection from the Rouge sewers to the Connor creek sewers and set it up on a computer to deal with heavy rains on one side of town that didn't occur elsewhere [[Connor creek connector?). They could move the water where the rain wasn't and not have to dump it in the waterways untreated. If you dont have to treat large amounts of water you could potentially have money to treat [[former sewer water) by putting the money into daylighting. The city easily spends billions on sewage. Divert some of the water and money elsewhere. It requires a new way of thinking of water and sewage. The quicker we arrive at the twenty first century the more jobs and less poverty there will be.

**xD_Brklyn** · August-12-11, 09:23 AM

"Parent's Creek"

Thanks was wondering what it was called before getting named "Bloody Run" by the British.

Like the idea of uncovering Parent's Creek but Baby's Creek? That seems like a real stretch. Still like to hear that these old streams are getting some notice.

**DetroitPlanner** · August-12-11, 09:32 AM

The City of Kalamazoo has been daylighting thier downtown creek [[Arcadia) for several years now. Large portions of it are exposed. I'd also like to figure out what has happened to the Clinton in Pontiac.

**kryptonite** · August-12-11, 09:43 AM

Near where I live there is a feeder creek to the Rouge River that is uncovered for at least a mile. It's very attractive and runs through the back yards of the homes within the residential area. For my part, I think uncovering creeks where it is economically feasible is an excellent idea. Open creeks running through parks, cemeteries, residential areas, even office/industrial complexes would be great for the aesthetics. And possibly even some habitat for aquatic species - fish, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals. I like the 'daylighting' idea personally.

**Detroitnerd** · August-12-11, 09:47 AM

Don't get me wrong, "daylighting" is a nice idea. I just oppose this particular plan. And there are other, more pressing sewerage projects we should consider first. It rankles me to think of plans that, at great expense, "beautify" Detroit while residents don't get the services their high taxes should entitle them to.

**Pam** · August-12-11, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by xD_Brklyn

"Parent's Creek"

Thanks was wondering what it was called before getting named "Bloody Run" by the British.

Like the idea of uncovering Parent's Creek but Baby's Creek? That seems like a real stretch. Still like to hear that these old streams are getting some notice.

Part of Parent's Creek is visible at Elmwood cemetery.

**Hermod** · August-12-11, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

The first $450,000 of $1,000,000,000? I find it hard to take anybody seriously who's making a .045 percent down payment on a plan that will benefit bugs and frogs more than living people.

And fish!!!!

Just think, with all of those open creeks and streams, the clowncil can designate an "official city fish" which would be none other than the gallon-sized plastic milk jug.

\

**Hypestyles** · August-12-11, 07:49 PM

wherever it is possible, it should be done-- more natural waterways can only benefit quality of life here..

**Mikeg** · August-12-11, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

wherever it is possible, it should be done-- more natural waterways can only benefit quality of life here..

According to the article, the "uncovered river" would not be able to follow the original streambed, therefore it would not be a "natural waterway" and IMHO, a waste of $1B.

**Big Dog** · August-12-11, 08:58 PM

In the 40's, there was a creek that went under Van Dyke, It was located between Outer Drive and 8 mile. I lived nearby and was there often. There were even steel railings on both the east side and west side of Van Dyke. It was a running stream. It was covered up and filled in, around 1950. Homes were on the west side and there was no sign of it, but on the east side[[ all vacant land) it was visible as far as you could see. I was told it was fox creek, which was a branch of conners creek, but I don't know.

**Mikeg** · August-12-11, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Big Dog

In the 40's, there was a creek that went under Van Dyke, It was located between Outer Drive and 8 mile. I lived nearby and was there often. There were even steel railings on both the east side and west side of Van Dyke. It was a running stream. It was covered up and filled in, around 1950. Homes were on the west side and there was no sign of it, but on the east side[[ all vacant land) it was visible as far as you could see. I was told it was fox creek, which was a branch of conners creek, but I don't know.

This excerpt of the 1876 Hamtramck Twp. Atlas shows that stream crossing Center Line Road [[Van Dyke) at a point about one-quarter mile south of the County Line [[Eight Mile Rd.). In Section 10 it is identified as a "Ditch" that is a northerly extension of Connors Creek. West of Center Line Road in Section 8, the stream is identified as the "Greenfield & Hamtramck Ditch".

**Big Dog** · August-12-11, 10:32 PM

Thanks much, Mikeg. That would be it. One could not stand up and walk under Van Dyke, but you could crouch and make your way across. Streetcars were running then on Van Dyke. I was a young boy then. If you crossed center line road to the north, you were in Baseline MI., before it became Warren, MI. It's funny, how I can remember those days clearly, but can't remember what I had for breakfast. LOL