L. Brooks: "I Don't Want to End Sprawl. I Love it."

[bartock]

The condescension is in the implicit assumption that everyone's views will converge toward yours as they gain experience, or alternatively that everyone's life experiences will serve to confirm your worldview. For my part, I almost certainly would have found your arguments more persuasive when I was five or ten years younger.

Ooooohhh that's a clever one. Unfortunately, the "implicit assumption" that you speak of does not exist. Just ask me, I wrote it.

[BrushStart]

Going forward, there will be a growing minority of people who desire sprawl developments, and an increasing majority of people who will refuse to foot the bill for their infrastructure. What we see now is a frantic panic by those diehard sprawl lovers, including the likes of Brooks Patterson.

The sprawl era has come to an end. Home values in sprawl developments continue to fall while the value of homes in/around walkable communities continues to grow [[or stabilize). No question that a home near a downtown area is a much better store of value than one in a sprawldivision. The market speaks for itself.

Ultimately, the sprawl areas will become low income areas while the urban centers gentrify out. This has already occurred en masse across all of Europe, Canada, and much of the United States. Downtown neighborhoods in Metro Detroit all demonstrate this as well, including Ann Arbor, Plymouth, Northville, Birmingham, Royal Oak, Ferndale, Midtown/Downtown Detroit. Walkable areas are inherently more desirable to most people and property values reflect that.

People like Patterson and his followers are desperately grasping at straws trying to preserve a bygone era. Sprawl is over. It's done. It doesn't make any sense financially, it contributed to the implosion of home values by dumping a glut of garbage housing on the market, and importantly, most people recognize that sprawl results in depressing and intolerable isolationism. Living in a big beige box and driving to strip malls all day, every day is no way to live. I think it actually starts to change you after a while such that people become strangely introverted and develop irrational fears of other human beings.

[jon]

Walkable areas are inherently more desirable to most people and property values reflect that.

Couldn't agree more. All I would add is that the inherent desirability comes from the inescapable economic differences between the two development types. If I can choose to live in a walkable place, it means I can choose NOT to spend all my disposable income on car payments, repair bills, gas bills and auto insurance. Instead, I can wear nicer clothes, eat better food, go see live music, support civic causes I believe in, live in a nicer house or anything else I might spend the extra 17% of my income that the car I don't have to own isn't sucking up.

[Wesley Mouch]

Couldn't agree more. All I would add is that the inherent desirability comes from the inescapable economic differences between the two development types. If I can choose to live in a walkable place, it means I can choose NOT to spend all my disposable income on car payments, repair bills, gas bills and auto insurance. Instead, I can wear nicer clothes, eat better food, go see live music, support civic causes I believe in, live in a nicer house or anything else I might spend the extra 17% of my income that the car I don't have to own isn't sucking up.

I agree 100%, but you are making a value judgement on which type of development you like. Other's might say that the 17% of income frees them from living near others, enables them to shop for less expensive clothes, and eliminates the need to walk.

And as long as the true cost of this choice is borne by the user, that's fine.

[jon]

It is not your place to give anyone the right to build a home where they choose. Who appointed you Emperor of all the land? And just who is "killing and maiming" your friends anyway?

You're imaginary libertarian view of this place is cute. Reality: we have laws in these parts that tell you what you can and can't do with your land. Countries that have been around longer than us mostly recognize that growth and expansion of the regional footprint should be managed at the regional scale and certainly not according to the whims of a self interested developer.

As for your astute question on the identity of the killers and maimers among us, I really can't say. This link will take you to a useful website that can provide you with some limited insight to the issue of vehicular injury in the region. They scratch out the names on the UD-10s but the high level numbers can give you some idea as to the extent of the problem: From 2002 through 2010, over 3,750 people were killed on southeast Michigan roads and nearly 27,000 people were permanently incapacitated [[an "A-level" injury).

Thanks about 1% of the regional population if you were trying to do the math. Still think sprawl is a good idea? Why don't I take you on a tour, we can visit all my friends. We'll start at Woodmere, then hit up Elmwood. A couple stops in Mt. Elliott and then we'll finish off at Woodlawn. Still rather hop in your hot rod to pick up a bag of chips and a gallon of milk? Maybe we can can check out a long term care facility [[tax payer funded of course) though room after room of crash victims in persistent vegetative states is a bit of a downer.

Good luck with your house at 50 mile. Just don't be surprised when you start seeing the costs you incur on others behalf.

[jon]

I agree 100%, but you are making a value judgement on which type of development you like

For sure I am. The thing is, there are high level decisions [[transit for one) that intentionally and severely limit the competitiveness of walkable areas in the region. These decisions are driven by folks like L Brooks whose primary interest is preserving the notion that the sprawl model is the the best model, the only model, the embodiment of the american dream, the reason for our nation's founding and that we'd be doing a disservice too all the men and woman who have ever fought and died for our country if we ever allowed for any other value system to compete on a level field with the gift of god that we call "sprawl".

I call bullshit on that.

[Wesley Mouch]

For sure I am....

I've said this before, but I never cease to be amazed that we can subsidize roads day long -- but expect transit to be self-funding.

[DC48080]

You're imaginary libertarian view of this place is cute. Reality: we have laws in these parts that tell you what you can and can't do with your land. Countries that have been around longer than us mostly recognize that growth and expansion of the regional footprint should be managed at the regional scale and certainly not according to the whims of a self interested developer.

As for your astute question on the identity of the killers and maimers among us, I really can't say. This link will take you to a useful website that can provide you with some limited insight to the issue of vehicular injury in the region. They scratch out the names on the UD-10s but the high level numbers can give you some idea as to the extent of the problem: From 2002 through 2010, over 3,750 people were killed on southeast Michigan roads and nearly 27,000 people were permanently incapacitated [[an "A-level" injury).

Thanks about 1% of the regional population if you were trying to do the math. Still think sprawl is a good idea? Why don't I take you on a tour, we can visit all my friends. We'll start at Woodmere, then hit up Elmwood. A couple stops in Mt. Elliott and then we'll finish off at Woodlawn. Still rather hop in your hot rod to pick up a bag of chips and a gallon of milk? Maybe we can can check out a long term care facility [[tax payer funded of course) though room after room of crash victims in persistent vegetative states is a bit of a downer.

Good luck with your house at 50 mile. Just don't be surprised when you start seeing the costs you incur on others behalf.

Your tired old histrionics aside, you said in your post to which I was referring: "2: i'll give you your right to build a house where ever you want if you give me and my neighbors the right to charge you a fee every time you drive on the roads near our homes, polluting our air with your exhaust and noise, killing and maiming our friends and generally taking up space that you don't pay for any other way. deal? ". I asked you who bestowed upon you the authority to grant anyone the right to build where they choose? You do not have that power. That power rests with the zoning boards of the city, village, township or county wherein the proposed development is located.

And it is not your right to charge anybody a fee to drive on "your" roads anymore than those out in the suburbs would have the right to charge you to drive on "their" roads. Unless a road is designated as private then it is dedicated to the public use. You must not know much about how land is developed. You must have never seen a subdivision plat.

And as to all of your "friends" who you claim [[with undue seventh grade drama class theatrics) have been killed and maimed and now spend their eternal rest in Woodmere, Elmwood, Mount Elliott and Woodlawn, what makes you think that all of them met their untimely demise at the hands of a speed demon from the hinterlands of 50 Mile Road driving a big noisy pollution-belching death machine? Isn't it possibe that some of these dear close personal friends of yours could have been killed by motorists who reside within the magnificient walkable urban paradise that is the City of Detroit? Or even one of those God awful boring, bland, cookie cutter inner-ring suburbs?

And by the way, yes, I would much rather jump into my car [[a four door American made sedan, not a "hot rod") and drive a few blocks for said "bag of chips and a gallon of milk" than live next to a liquor store and the requisite problems that accompany such a location.

And lastly, I do not live at 50 Mile, or anywhere near there for that matter. I live in Wayne County [[not in Detroit, thank God). The vast majority of folks I do know who live in the greater 50 Mile Road area rarely, if ever, come into your ever so walkable, hip urban fiefdom. You don't have to worry about them killing and maiming all of your friends or dirtying up the precious urban streetwall with soot from their hot rods.

P.S. As to this "Just don't be surprised when you start seeing the costs you incur on others behalf " nonsense; the folks who live "way out there" do pay for the majority of their roads and other infrastructure through bond sales and tax revenues. Sure the State and Federal governments kick in some, but Detroit gets a far greater amount of money from State and Federal sources than those awful, greedy "one percenters" at 50 Mile Road.

[Novine]

" the folks who live "way out there" do pay for the majority of their roads and other infrastructure through bond sales and tax revenues. Sure the State and Federal governments kick in some, but Detroit gets a far greater amount of money from State and Federal sources than those awful, greedy "one percenters" at 50 Mile Road."

No they don't and the numbers back up the fact that they don't.

[DC48080]

No they don't and the numbers back up the fact that they don't.

Ok then show me official government statistics that prove that residents of the City of Detroit are paying a greater share of the improvements out in the hinterlands than the residents of said hinterlands are.

[Novine]

It's simple math. Many sprawl communities are contributing nothing or next to nothing for the roads that goes into their communities. Most of the funding for that comes from gas taxes paid by drivers across the state and country. When a $30 million dollar interchange project goes in at 30 Mile Road, that bill isn't being paid by the drivers of Washington Township. It's money coming from drivers in Detroit and elsewhere who watch their gas tax revenues go out into the far reaches of suburbia to pay for an interchange to nowhere to be built. Washington Township contributes nothing to that project.

[DC48080]

Still no statistics. I was referring to local roads rather than interstates. But I'll play along with your line of reasoning for a moment: When Woodward, Gratiot, 8 Mile, The Lodge or any other state roads get improved in the city of Detroit it is paid for with money coming from drivers out in the boonies and elsewhere that watch their gas tax revenue get sunk into what many of them see as a dying city and one in which they have no interest in and will derive no benefit from.

Sure, they are welcome to drive on those roads if they wish just as you Detroiters are welcome to drive on that interchange at 30 Mile Road.

Saying that Washington Twp. contributes nothing is like saying that Detroit contributes nothing to projects in Detroit which is patently absurd. People in Washington Twp. pay gasoline taxes too.

[Bham1982]

The sprawl era has come to an end. Home values in sprawl developments continue to fall while the value of homes in/around walkable communities continues to grow [[or stabilize). No question that a home near a downtown area is a much better store of value than one in a sprawldivision. The market speaks for itself.

Uh, the "market" in Metro Detroit generally shows that sprawlier parts doing better than the more theoretically walkable parts.

Now, granted, I don't think they're doing better because of sprawl. They're doing better because they're safer, have better schools, etc.

But it can't really be debated that the more urban areas are doing worse. Detroit, Highland Park, Hamtramck, River Rouge, Ecorse, Pontiac & Mt. Clemens had the worst proportional property value losses over the last few years, and they're the densest communities.

Really the only non-sprawl cities that outperformed the market in the tri-county area are Birmingham and Rochester, and both cities are tiny walkable islands in massive seas of sprawl. Birmingham serves the greater Bloomfield-Birmingham area, most of which has estate-sized lots, and Rochester serves the exurban tract home areas of Rochester, Shelby, Oakland Twp, etc.

The lower Woodward corridor [[Ferndale/Royal Oak) got hit hard, the Pointes were hit harder, Dearborn did poorly. And 90% of the metro density is in Detroit neighborhoods, and we know that story.

[jon]

...You must have never seen a subdivision plat.

Actually, I regularly submit my plat maps to the DetroitYes forums for formal and legally binding approval. This is clearly not a place for discussion, not a place where rhetorical devices could be employed but a legally recognized function of the real estate industry. Thank goodness you reminded everyone that I'm not the person that has final say regarding the legality of their building plans.

And as to all of your "friends"...

I made absolutely no claim regarding the proportion of deaths and injuries as they relate to the residential locations of the victims and perpetrators. Any small amount of rational thought would lead to the indisputable position that deaths and injuries are caused by drivers wherever they drive.

Why that's at all relevant I'm not sure. If the entire region is structured in a way that forces car trips for every need, it means that people are generally unable to go anywhere without exposure to the non-trivial risk of causing injury or being injured. Why do we tolerate it? There are obvious solutions, they're used all over the world.

I would much rather jump into my car [[a four door American made sedan, not a "hot rod") and drive a few blocks for said "bag of chips and a gallon of milk" than live next to a liquor store and the requisite problems that accompany such a location.

Free advice: 1 - you should consider traveling, 2 - you've got the deep down sort of racism, there are workshops for dealing with it, you might want to look one up.

And lastly, I do not live at 50 Mile, or anywhere near there for that matter. I live in Wayne County [[not in Detroit, thank God). The vast majority of folks I do know who live in the greater 50 Mile Road area rarely, if ever, come into your ever so walkable, hip urban fiefdom. You don't have to worry about them killing and maiming all of your friends or dirtying up the precious urban streetwall with soot from their hot rods.

Despite your unverified claims, I'm pretty sure you live in Midtown [[which you refer to as the Cass Corridor), wear tight jeans and lensless glasses, drink Stroh's and work as a lot manager for Ilitch.

[DC48080]

Free advice: 1 - you should consider traveling, 2 - you've got the deep down sort of racism, there are workshops for dealing with it, you might want to look one up.

If you knew anything about me, or the makeup of my family, you would be rendered speechless and shrivel in embarrassment at having called me a racist. This would, of course, presume that you have the class and tact to recognize when you are wrong. But when presented with facts and logic that you cannot refute just call the presenter of said facts and logic a racist and go ahead feel superior about yourself. That is a great solution!

Despite your unverified claims, I'm pretty sure you live in Midtown [[which you refer to as the Cass Corridor), wear tight jeans and lensless glasses, drink Stroh's and work as a lot manager for Ilitch.

And while I do not need to verify my claims to someone such as yourself, I can assure you that I most definitely do not live in Midtown or anywhere else in the City of Detroit. Never have, never will. I know that will be taken as an affront to many on this forum that seem to feel that Midtown is the be all and end all of the universe.

Lastly, I have never owned a pair of skinny jeans and I wouldn't even pour that swill called Stroh's beer down my drain for fear that it would eat through the pipes.

[Novine]

"Still no statistics. I was referring to local roads rather than interstates."

So what? Washington Township doesn't contribute anything towards local roads either. Washington Township drivers may contribute a small percentage of the total cost in gas taxes towards the maintenance of local roads or towards the total cost of a freeway interchange but it's a fractional percentage of the total cost. The share coming from Detroit is far greater than what the drivers in the burbs are paying.

How do you think the sprawl infrastructure was financed over the past 40 years? It didn't come from farmers in Macomb County or newly planted households in Oakland County paying higher taxes to pay for new roads and freeways. It was subsidized and is still subsidized by taxes coming from urbanized areas flowing out to suburban and exurban areas.

The sick part of it is that the people of Detroit are stuck with the costs of maintaining the infrastructure that was put in place to serve a city of 2 million people. Even though 60% of that population fled to the suburbs, the remaining 40% are forced to pay for the cost of 100% of the infrastructure. Meanwhile, people in the suburbs turn their noses up at Detroit's inability to maintain that infrastructure while they gladly take the tax dollars from Detroit to pay for the infrastructure in the suburbs that those communities couldn't afford themselves to develop.

[Novine]

"But it can't really be debated that the more urban areas are doing worse. Detroit, Highland Park, Hamtramck, River Rouge, Ecorse, Pontiac & Mt. Clemens had the worst proportional property value losses over the last few years, and they're the densest communities."

Whether you look at this from a statewide perspective of the major urban cities in the state or stick to SE Michigan, there's no correlation between the density or urban nature of a community and the percentage decline in property values. Contrary to what you claimed, many urban areas in the state saw smaller declines in property values than was experienced in suburban communities. Look at the numbers. Grand Rapids had a decline in property tax values of about 3% between 2008 and 2010. Battle Creek had a 1.3% increase. Kalamazoo dropped 3.5%. Lansing dropped about 6%. Pontiac did see a decline of 20% over those 2 year but like Flint, it was the closer in percentage to suburban communities than it was to other large urban cities across the state.

In southeast Michigan between 2008 and 2010, Ann Arbor decreased 4%. Detroit fell 9%. Royal Oak was down 7%. In the suburbs, Novi declined 10%, Troy was down 12%. Canton Township dropped 13%. Farmington Hills dropped 18%. Same with West Bloomfield. The biggest suburban communities generally saw a bigger proportional decline in property values than was seen in the similar sized urbanized communities.

[Bham1982]

Whether you look at this from a statewide perspective of the major urban cities in the state or stick to SE Michigan, there's no correlation between the density or urban nature of a community and the percentage decline in property values.

There's abolutely a correlation. Detroit alone is enough to give a correlation, as it's the bulk of the tri-county urbanity. Are you arguing that Detroit hasn't suffered greater proportional property value losses than suburbia?

Now there certainly isn't any evidence of causation, one way or the other, which is my point. There is no evidence that relative urbanity plays a major role in relative property values.

Contrary to what you claimed, many urban areas in the state saw smaller declines in property values than was experienced in suburban communities. Look at the numbers. Grand Rapids had a decline in property tax values of about 3% between 2008 and 2010. Battle Creek had a 1.3% increase. Kalamazoo dropped 3.5%. Lansing dropped about 6%. Pontiac did see a decline of 20% over those 2 year but like Flint, it was the closer in percentage to suburban communities than it was to other large urban cities across the state.

Did Grand Rapids/Battle Creek/Kalamazoo/Flint cities suffer greater losses than their sprawling suburbs? That's the only relevant question.

In southeast Michigan between 2008 and 2010, An

n Arbor decreased 4%. Detroit fell 9%. Royal Oak was down 7%. In the suburbs, Novi declined 10%, Troy was down 12%. Canton Township dropped 13%. Farmington Hills dropped 18%. Same with West Bloomfield. The biggest suburban communities generally saw a bigger proportional decline in property values than was seen in the similar sized urbanized communities.

Your numbers aren't correct. Detroit median home sale prices dropped from 60k to less than 10k, which is pretty much the worst anywhere.

And which city had the highest % increase in Metro Detroit home prices? Northville Township. Is there a sidewalk or bus route in Northville Township?

[Novine]

Let's review since you've forgotten what you said:

"Uh, the "market" in Metro Detroit generally shows that sprawlier parts doing better than the more theoretically walkable parts."

In fact, the numbers don't show that to be true at all. When shown that between 2008 and 2010, suburban sprawl communities saw a bigger decline in property values than their more urbanized counterparts, you're only response is "look at Detroit!" Even when it's show that many of Michigan's major cities have seen small declines in property values, you ignore those numbers. I guess we're supposed to ignore the double-digit declines in West Bloomfield, Troy, Canton, and Farmington Hills because Northville Township, which does have sidewalks and bike paths, saw an increase this past year in property tax values. Try again.

[BrushStart]

Uh, the "market" in Metro Detroit generally shows that sprawlier parts doing better than the more theoretically walkable parts.

Now, granted, I don't think they're doing better because of sprawl. They're doing better because they're safer, have better schools, etc.

But it can't really be debated that the more urban areas are doing worse. Detroit, Highland Park, Hamtramck, River Rouge, Ecorse, Pontiac & Mt. Clemens had the worst proportional property value losses over the last few years, and they're the densest communities.

Really the only non-sprawl cities that outperformed the market in the tri-county area are Birmingham and Rochester, and both cities are tiny walkable islands in massive seas of sprawl. Birmingham serves the greater Bloomfield-Birmingham area, most of which has estate-sized lots, and Rochester serves the exurban tract home areas of Rochester, Shelby, Oakland Twp, etc.

The lower Woodward corridor [[Ferndale/Royal Oak) got hit hard, the Pointes were hit harder, Dearborn did poorly. And 90% of the metro density is in Detroit neighborhoods, and we know that story.

Even if you were right [[and you're not), Metro Detroit is a worldwide anomaly. Look at regions all across the globe: London, Paris, New York, Toronto, Rome, Chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Berlin, etc. They all have gentrified cores with walkable attributes and the low density outlying areas are reserved to the lower income populous. This fact doesn't just apply to class-A global cities, either. It applies to the vast majority of cities of all sizes.

Real estate values in walkable, urban areas is significantly, if not astronomically, higher than it is in sprawl areas. You use Metro Detroit as the basis of your hypothesis because it is a convenient outlier. In fact, it is an extreme outlier. It is the exception that proves the rule, but you are clever to keep your analysis narrow so as to ignore the overwhelming evidence that proves you absolutely wrong.

Even real estate values in your hometown of Birmingham show the desirability of walkable towns over sprawdivisions. Now, surely you will cite the 4,000 sq ft homes in subdivisions that have retained their values, but these are not representative of average suburban housing. Birmingham and West Bloomfield are filled with large, well-built, brick homes constructed for the elite. Many are on very large lots, are in gated communities, or have other characteristics similar to modern mansions.

Look, seriously, look at what is happening to suburban sprawl across Metro Detroit. It is in continuous decline. Let's examine cities like Allen Park, Melvindale, Inskter, Garden City, Livonia, Taylor, Redford, Southfield, Warren, Eastpointe, Hazel Park, Madison Heights, Lincoln Park, Westland, etc. These are typical suburban cities and they are ALL sliding off the cliff. In contrast, places like Royal Oak, Birmingham, Plymouth, Northville, Ann Arbor, Ferndale, and downtown/midtown Detroit are thriving even given a disastrous regional economy. This is because they have desirable attributes, i.e. walkable downtown areas.

The failing urban centers you urge to support your theory are failing not because of their development pattern, but because of other issues. Crime, poor schools, lousy public services, graft, legacy costs/debt problems, and higher taxes have set these cities back. If they did not have these problems, Pontiac, Mount Clemens, and greater Detroit would be absolutely booming. Despite these problems, many of these areas are still growing, such as Downtown/Midtown Detroit.

Over time, I think all of these things will come to fruition and there will be no debate. Even now, I think the evidence of urban areas succeeding over sprawl is overwhelming, especially when you take the discussion outside of just Metro Detroit, which is an extreme outlier.

[iheartthed]

Even if you were right [[and you're not), Metro Detroit is a worldwide anomaly. Look at regions all across the globe: London, Paris, New York, Toronto, Rome, Chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Berlin, etc. They all have gentrified cores with walkable attributes and the low density outlying areas are reserved to the lower income populous. This fact doesn't just apply to class-A global cities, either. It applies to the vast majority of cities of all sizes.

Real estate values in walkable, urban areas is significantly, if not astronomically, higher than it is in sprawl areas. You use Metro Detroit as the basis of your hypothesis because it is a convenient outlier. In fact, it is an extreme outlier. It is the exception that proves the rule, but you are clever to keep your analysis narrow so as to ignore the overwhelming evidence that proves you absolutely wrong.

I agree except for one thing: Detroit has this in common with other regions that have extremely depressed economies. Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Buffalo, etc. You could argue that the decentralization is a symptom of the economic problems, but my sense is that it's the other way around. I believe that decentralized regions sap the economic dynamism [[or economic agility) that would otherwise be achieved naturally in a large population center.

Juxtaposing a place like Detroit with a similar yet foreign city such as Turin... I think there is a case to be made that a decentralized region makes economic reinvention that much harder, which might explain why we've nearly gone through two full generations of economic stagnation in Detroit yet have no signs of a diversified economy on the horizon. On the other hand, Turin has apparently collapsed and come back in far less time than Detroit.

You could even look to at other domestic cities that have collapsed and revived anew: New York, Boston, and [[to a slightly lesser extent) Chicago have all collapsed and come back in a far shorter time frame than Detroit. These cities were all once heavily manufacturing dependent, but none are still reliant on the dominant industry that carried their economies forty years ago. It should be lost on no one that a man who calls himself a "son of Michigan" -- and wants to be the next president -- went to Boston to start an incredibly successful company which made him millions of dollars. In the post war era, people from Detroit go to other places and to get inspired and start the next big thing.

[Bham1982]

Even if you were right [[and you're not), Metro Detroit is a worldwide anomaly. Look at regions all across the globe: London, Paris, New York, Toronto, Rome, Chicago, Boston, Tokyo, Berlin, etc. They all have gentrified cores with walkable attributes and the low density outlying areas are reserved to the lower income populous.

You're just cherrypicking urban areas that happen to be successful, and then conflating correlation with causation.

Yes, Manhattan is rich, urban and successful. Everyone wants to live there. But so is Silicon Valley, and there's nothing remotely urban in Silicon Valley.

For every Manhattan and Paris, there's an Orange County and Silicon Valley.
And much of the NYC and Paris wealth is in the suburbs. Many of the richest Parisians live in suburban Neilly-sur-Seine, many of the richest New Yorkers are in Greenwich, Scarsdale, Alphine, Hamptons, etc.

And, again, no one on this thread has made a case for causation. Is there any evidence that that urbanity causes success? Is there any evidence that sprawl causes failure? I don't see it.

[canuck]

You're just cherrypicking urban areas that happen to be successful, and then conflating correlation with causation.

Yes, Manhattan is rich, urban and successful. Everyone wants to live there. But so is Silicon Valley, and there's nothing remotely urban in Silicon Valley.

For every Manhattan and Paris, there's an Orange County and Silicon Valley.
And much of the NYC and Paris wealth is in the suburbs. Many of the richest Parisians live in suburban Neilly-sur-Seine, many of the richest New Yorkers are in Greenwich, Scarsdale, Alphine, Hamptons, etc.

And, again, no one on this thread has made a case for causation. Is there any evidence that that urbanity causes success? Is there any evidence that sprawl causes failure? I don't see it.

I hate to admit it, but you are right Bham1982 about the general assumption that suburbs point to a necessary impoverishment of the core. There are problems with the way sprawl is effected in Detroit though in the lack of transit structures relating the burbs with the core city.
The historical degradation of what was once a model infrastructure to be replaced with highly adequate roadways impoverished the city for lack of options. Among the many problems the city faces, this one will be one of the harder ones to solve and has contributed greatly to the overall demise of its citizenry.

[BrushStart]

You're just cherrypicking urban areas that happen to be successful, and then conflating correlation with causation.

Yes, Manhattan is rich, urban and successful. Everyone wants to live there. But so is Silicon Valley, and there's nothing remotely urban in Silicon Valley.

For every Manhattan and Paris, there's an Orange County and Silicon Valley.
And much of the NYC and Paris wealth is in the suburbs. Many of the richest Parisians live in suburban Neilly-sur-Seine, many of the richest New Yorkers are in Greenwich, Scarsdale, Alphine, Hamptons, etc.

And, again, no one on this thread has made a case for causation. Is there any evidence that that urbanity causes success? Is there any evidence that sprawl causes failure? I don't see it.

I no more cherry picked my urban areas than you did your suburban ones. Secondly, there is a big difference between mansions for the wealthy on estate-sized lots versus typical American suburbs filled with cookie cutter homes clad in aluminum siding. Allen Park is a far cry from the Hamptons. Your comparison is ridiculous.

The "causation" you desire is obvious, you only fail to see it because you refuse to accept the conclusion that everyone else already recognizes. Urbanity causes success only insofar as it is found to be more desired than suburban developments by most of the people living in 1st world nations. I really didn't need to "cherry pick" any cities to make my case, I could have just posted a map of Western Europe, Canada, and the United State's Eastern Seaboard. All of those cities, with few exceptions, have the highest home value near the urban core. This condition is accentuated in major cities, but it applies to walkable, mid-sized towns as well.

I cannot comprehend why you reject what is so obviously true that it has become brutal to argue with you. It's like I keep trying to provide you with evidence that the grass is green, and you keep rejecting it as if reality is going to somehow change if you just keep denying it.

I will not argue with you that there are upscale suburbs with stable/rising home values, such as the Hamptons, Orange County, and West Bloomfield, and even some rural exurb communities. BUT, these communities do not represent the massive tracts of typical, post-war suburban housing, which are widely in decline.

[Bham1982]

I no more cherry picked my urban areas than you did your suburban ones.

But I'm not the one arguing that relative density plays a role in prosperity, I think it's plays little to no role [[one way or the other) in most cases. The burden is on you to prove this correlation, when there are countless examples to the contrary.

Secondly, there is a big difference between mansions for the wealthy on estate-sized lots versus typical American suburbs filled with cookie cutter homes clad in aluminum siding. Allen Park is a far cry from the Hamptons. Your comparison is ridiculous.

Allen Park is walkable and relatively urban in the Metro Detroit context. Has the same density as Birmingham.

It, and nearby Melvindale, Lincoln Park, Ecorse, River Rouge, etc. should all be outperforming less dense places like Northville and Rochester, to say nothing of the real sprawlers out in Livingston. But they're doing far worse.