Suburbs are unsustainable?

[professorscott]

No hangup here I thought it was pretty funny that someone would use as 70 year old example of how tough it is in the present day for a black family to move into a white neighborhood.

No hangup here either; I thought it was pretty funny that someone would make that particular remark on a day when this was in the news locally:

Eastpointe Residents Receive Racial Threats In the Mail
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...ts-in-the-mail

[Jimaz]

SPLC's Hate Map

Since 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 54 percent. This surge has been fueled by fears of Latino immigration and, more recently, by the election of the country’s first African-American president and the economic crisis.

I look forward to the day when SPLC has to close due to a lack of need for their services.

[Mikeg]

SPLC's Hate MapI look forward to the day when SPLC has to close due to a lack of need for their services.

Just because the SPLC announces a 54% increase since 2000 in the number of their self-identified "hate groups" doesn't mean there has been a corresponding increase in the number of hate crimes.

In fact, comparing the FBI data for 2000 and 2008 hate crimes shows that there has been a real DECREASE in the number of hate crimes.

Total Hate Crime incidents:
8,063 [[2000) vs. 7,783 [[2008); change = 3.4% decrease
Total # of reporting agencies:
11,690 [[2000) vs. 13,690 [[2008); change = 17.1% increase
Population covered by reporting agencies:
236.9 million [[2000) vs. 269.4 million [[2008); change = 13.7% increase

Since the SPLC's methodology shows no correlation with real life hate crime offenses, perhaps the day has already arrived for them to close up shop.

[canuck]

The problem with all these arguments is that Detroit is built in a very similar manner to its suburbs. I doubt even 5% of Detroit city residents do much of their daily errands by foot. The vast majority of city residents have cars, which is even more notable considering that there are so many Detroiters with low incomes.

If 15 and Livernois is unsustainable, then so is 7 and Livernois. If the suburbs fail at some point, there is no reason to think that Detroit city proper would fare any better.

Absolootle!

I am very proud of you Crawford for this short but utterly relevant rebuke to Detroitdad even though I am in agreement with the gist of his posts especially as relates to the stoopid architecture we have experienced these past 60 years...
But you must remember that the density was much higher before the abandonment. The city was too stetched out but nevertheless connected.

[professorscott]

Detroit is similar to its suburbs only in that Detroit, more than many other cities, has always been a city of largely single-family homes and duplexes. However:

1. The typical lot in the City is much smaller than the typical lot in all but the oldest suburbs, therefore [[for instance) 1000 homes in Detroit take up less land [[and road, water pipe, etc.) than 1000 homes in, say, Troy.

2. Detroit was built mostly with through streets so neighborhoods are connected; suburbs, especially newer ones, are intentionally hard to get around in.

3. Detroit had neighborhood stores so people could walk for many of their daily errands; in the burbs it is necessary to drive nearly everywhere, by design.

4. In Detroit there are hundreds of thousands of people without access to a car, and a bus system which comes within about 1/4 to 1/2 mile of where everybody lives. In most of the suburbs, it is close to impossible to live without a car, and even in an old established suburb like Royal Oak, if you live in the apartments at 13 and Crooks you are a mile from any bus stop [[and that bus doesn't run very often).

So I think the dissimilarities are significant, especially the first one. How else could we be using up 40% more land with only 2% more people?

[canuck]

Detroit is similar to its suburbs only in that Detroit, more than many other cities, has always been a city of largely single-family homes and duplexes. However:

1. The typical lot in the City is much smaller than the typical lot in all but the oldest suburbs, therefore [[for instance) 1000 homes in Detroit take up less land [[and road, water pipe, etc.) than 1000 homes in, say, Troy.

2. Detroit was built mostly with through streets so neighborhoods are connected; suburbs, especially newer ones, are intentionally hard to get around in.

3. Detroit had neighborhood stores so people could walk for many of their daily errands; in the burbs it is necessary to drive nearly everywhere, by design.

4. In Detroit there are hundreds of thousands of people without access to a car, and a bus system which comes within about 1/4 to 1/2 mile of where everybody lives. In most of the suburbs, it is close to impossible to live without a car, and even in an old established suburb like Royal Oak, if you live in the apartments at 13 and Crooks you are a mile from any bus stop [[and that bus doesn't run very often).

So I think the dissimilarities are significant, especially the first one. How else could we be using up 40% more land with only 2% more people?

Yes, one thing that strikes me as totally crazy is the size of those suburban lots, even some in Detroit proper. Montreal's older neighborhoods consist mainly of tenement and townhouses with
smaller lots. The island suburbs tend to repeat that pattern and have a smaller footprint. The off-island suburbs have a fair bit of monster homes happening but there is also zoning requirement
for high density condo and apartment complexes. I find that the lots here are a lot smaller, sometimes too small for the size of the house, but arable land is not wasted as much as in the US. These huge lots with the tractor mowers and the whole competitive bullshit is maddening. all these little kings...

[DetroitDad]

Those huge plots of land are an attempt to have a private park, really. It is up there with private movie theaters, private transit, private working space, private swimming pools, etc., etc. etc.. Many of us want those things even though there is a serious problem with their sustainability, and requires much more work and money to maintain.

It comes down to whether you feel more at home in lively public places, or feel more at home in controlled and/or relaxing private places.

[DetroitDad]

In regards to regionalism;

One of the issues is that in order to have more creative or sustainable land use; you would have more density in a region that is already horribly overbuilt. Someone is going to have to lose under a "business as usual" strategy. Right now it appears that one of those losers is Detroit, but it's gotten to a point where there is going to likely be more lost than Detroit can actually account for on it's own, and that's where the problem with regionalism comes in at it's strongest. Suburbs compete with suburbs. No one wants to lose.

All of Detroit's answers can be found at 5201 Woodward Avenue. In this case, the answers have to be in game theory, and "The Prisoner's Dilema" [[in that "game" what's best for the two players is for them both to refuse to testify, and each spend 1 year in jail). Another one of my favorite examples is the blonde at the coffee bar.

Let's say that you are one of a number of boys hanging out at the Urban Bean Coffee Bar. In walks a group of beautiful girls, all but one of them brunette. The only blonde girl in the group is the one all the boys would first approach. All your friends plan on going for the blonde, right along with you. There are two strategies to choose; go talk to the blonde, or talk to one of the brunettes. If you all go for the blonde, you block each other and no one is going to get her phone number. So, everyone then goes for her friends, but they won't give you the time of day because let's face it, no one likes to be the second choice.

On the other hand, if no one approaches the blonde, you don't get in each other's way or insult the other girls, and everyone [[except the blonde) wins.

The answer is that the best strategy is one where everyone wins, even though that means a little sacrifice. How this strategy will truthfully [[no false promises, we need to build trust here) benefit all Detroiters, needs to be made clear. Affective strategies need to be proven to work, and then shouted from the rooftops and taught in both prisons and schools on a regular basis.

If everybody doesn't win, than nobody will win.

[DetroitDad]

The problems are with the current winners. In that blonde scenario that I mentioned earlier, things would change if Brad Pitt was in your group. Brad Pitt may go for the blonde every time. Brad has advantages over everyone else. He may see no reason to sacrifice anything for the group.

Some of Detroit's suburbs are Brad Pitts, and enough Detroiters seem to worry that one day Brad Pitt will want to move in their city. They enjoy being the big fish in a small pond, and have no desire to be a small fish in a bigger pond.

[Al Publican]

I imagine that there are some high income types that live downtown and put their kids in private schools. I knew a few such types in Lafayette Park.

My question is: why do poor people remain in Detroit when it will only make them poorer. Move, move some where where there is public transportation where you can get to a job without a car.

[DetroitDad]

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...s-to-drop-more

Pontiac -- Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson said Wednesday local property values will continue to erode for the next three years and property tax revenues may not return to 2007 levels for more than a decade.
The projection suggests that Oakland and surrounding counties will face severe budget pressures in the coming years.
Patterson said that property values could fall as much as 50 percent from their peak three years ago.

[fryar]

My question is: why do poor people remain in Detroit when it will only make them poorer. Move, move some where where there is public transportation where you can get to a job without a car.

I don't know about the car bit...my car's probably got a blue book value of $1500 or so...and the insurance on it, in downtown, was something like $50 per month. That was no fault only, of course, but with high limits. It's high mileage, but it runs fine, and the marginal expense of operating a basic car like that, something with air bags that runs ok, is probably exceeded by the marginal rent expense that you pay in a place that has better public transportation. Especially if you net out the cost of a bus pass. I don't think that's what's keeping anyone down.

They stay for the same reasons others stay who could stand to improve their station in life by moving somewhere else. It's home, they like it, it's familiar & comfortable, that kind of thing.

FWIW, I'm sure there are some that did. I wonder if there aren't quite a number of economic refugees in Wyoming. Not that I expect public transportation there to be superior, of course.

Or were you just kidding, and next comes the part where I completely miss 9mile&seneca's sarcasm?

[Novine]

"My question is: why do poor people remain in Detroit when it will only make them poorer. Move, move some where where there is public transportation where you can get to a job without a car."

- They don't have the resources to move.

- There are few or no job options for them elsewhere.

- They don't want to leave an existing support network of family and friends that may help them get by.

- They don't have the life experience to realize that other places may be better for them than where they are currently living.

- They may have medical conditions that limit their mobility, medical care, etc.

There's plenty of reasons that poor people stay where they are, even as it makes them poorer. What I don't understand is our refusal to invest in a mass transit system that would benefit everyone by providing them with the opportunities to make them less poor and more productive members of society, among the many other benefits of a successful mass transit system.

[Hermod]

SPLC's Hate MapI look forward to the day when SPLC has to close due to a lack of need for their services.

SPLC isn't going anywhere. They will just redefine the "new racism". Read C. Northcote Parkinson some time.

[Hermod]

In regards to regionalism;

One of the issues is that in order to have more creative or sustainable land use; you would have more density in a region that is already horribly overbuilt. Someone is going to have to lose under a "business as usual" strategy. Right now it appears that one of those losers is Detroit, but it's gotten to a point where there is going to likely be more lost than Detroit can actually account for on it's own, and that's where the problem with regionalism comes in at it's strongest. Suburbs compete with suburbs. No one wants to lose.

All of Detroit's answers can be found at 5201 Woodward Avenue. In this case, the answers have to be in game theory, and "The Prisoner's Dilema" [[in that "game" what's best for the two players is for them both to refuse to testify, and each spend 1 year in jail). Another one of my favorite examples is the blonde at the coffee bar.

Let's say that you are one of a number of boys hanging out at the Urban Bean Coffee Bar. In walks a group of beautiful girls, all but one of them brunette. The only blonde girl in the group is the one all the boys would first approach. All your friends plan on going for the blonde, right along with you. There are two strategies to choose; go talk to the blonde, or talk to one of the brunettes. If you all go for the blonde, you block each other and no one is going to get her phone number. So, everyone then goes for her friends, but they won't give you the time of day because let's face it, no one likes to be the second choice.

On the other hand, if no one approaches the blonde, you don't get in each other's way or insult the other girls, and everyone [[except the blonde) wins.

The answer is that the best strategy is one where everyone wins, even though that means a little sacrifice. How this strategy will truthfully [[no false promises, we need to build trust here) benefit all Detroiters, needs to be made clear. Affective strategies need to be proven to work, and then shouted from the rooftops and taught in both prisons and schools on a regular basis.

If everybody doesn't win, than nobody will win.

Right! When you go into a club looking for a hookup, practice the GUESS principle [[Go Ugly Early, Sure Shot).

[daddeeo]

I used to feel superior years ago about living in the city and not the suburbs. That changed after a home invasion and an armed robbery.
It sure is nice walking down a street [[in the suburbs) without having to worry about getting mugged. The burbs are generally cleaner, have better schools, more responsive police, better parking and tons of variety for shopping.
Oh yeah, people's attitudes are better too.

[professorscott]

It's an interesting point, applying game theory to this whole issue. What interests me is that the political leaders in the region aren't playing the game they think they're playing [[similar to the concept of the television program True Beauty).

The political leaders in each city seem to think that they are playing a zero-sum game in which the only other players are the other cities in the region. So, for instance, Dan Gilbert says he's going to move some jobs to Detroit, and Livonia howls, because in Livonia's flawed concept of the game, Detroit is its competitor.

As a matter of fact, Livonia's competitors are China and India and Sri Lanka and Venezuela, not Detroit. But by playing this fractious pseudo-game of economic development, in which Troy can only win if Sterling Heights loses, in fact we are actually conceding the real game to our real competitors. While we bicker, other regions [[in North America and around the world) advance.

There's plenty of transit discussion elsewhere in DY but just as one illustration: while we argue endlessly about rail transit; other cities have already built it and are benefiting from it, and are laughing at us.

So the question of this thread, whether suburbs are unsustainable, isn't completely meaningful per se. The bigger question is "is the region as a whole sustainable", and the answer, as the region is currently constituted and organized, is no. We fight each other while the rest of the world just continuously beats us up.

[sam]

[quote=DetroitDad;43755]You don't see it because Downtown Detroit isn't sustainable living, although it is much more sustainable than many suburbs. Basically, Detroit became a suburb by default. What the people in Detroit who talk of sustainability are really saying is that we need to be thinking about what we as a region are actually doing and why. Does it make more sense to try to sustain the unsustainable or just figure out how to make the city work for us. If we don't change the course we are on, we are likely to end up where we are headed.

Until recently, the general consensus was to rebuild the suburbs into walkable communities complete with mini downtowns and all, planned urbanism [[new urbanism). Unfortunately, that idea has come up against the reality that is the current depression/recession. Here are some more videos along with a podcast that talk about what good urban design is [[video) and what can be done in order to live a sustainable lifestyle. They talk about how suburban developments could be converted, but the general idea is the same.

Audio: http://kunstlercast.com/shows/Kunstl...me_Correa.html

Wow- I grew up on Glendale in the 50's and 60's and practically everything said by this architect was engineered into my neighborhood - mixed use, mixed income, grid layout, sidewalks, parks, proximity of business, low speed limits. I live in Reston, a planned community, but it is still dysfunctional compared to the center of Detroit in the middle part of the last century. The amazing thing is that Jane Jacobs considered Detroit to be a poor example of urban living; she preferred NYC. However, considering how things developed in the last 50 years, Detroit was an example of a city that worked, at least for half a century. Typical suburban design is an abomination, and I am including Reston,, which was billed as the ultimate planned community. I do not have anything against suburbs, but they did not have to turn out this way.

[fryar]

Daddeo, I get you, but that's different from the question of whether sprawl, in general, is sustainable. It has more to do with Detroit having been abandoned.

DetroitDad, downtown's not sustainable?

ProfessorScott, you're right on the money. The zero-sum game idea is bs, and a dead end. Sprawling suburbs can try to make room for a couple of wanna-be latter-day beatniks who are relatively high-income knowledge workers by putting 200 apartments and a park on Main Street, and Detroit can try to put down some developments with cul-de-sacs, if that's what is thought is desired by old-fogey scaredniks with families, but really, why not have everyone do what they excel at?

I haven't read her books, but I have always subscribed to what I have heard about Jane Jacobs. I will grant that big yards are nice, but I think city life is, on the whole, innately better, because you're in a more tightly-knit community due to the greater degree of interaction with your neighbors; that being said, everyone is of course free to do as they wish, and some cities would seem to demonstrate the opposite, at least at first glance. But those problems all relate to poverty, which is why in Paris, when the oppressed minority goes on a riot, it's in the suburbs.

[Detroitnerd]

The thing is, it will cost a TREE-MENDOUS amount of money if we want to try to retrofit the suburbs and make them urban centers. And, given our political situation, we'll have 50-odd communities all trying to create urban centers out of parking lots and strip malls, many of which will have no history at all. If we get together and say, OK, this is our historic city center; let's capitalize on that. Here are our suburbs; let's let them be good suburban environments. Here we have all this junk out in the exurbs that is the equivalent of a solid-steel 1950s car that only fanciers of the form would pay to use; let's think about an Adirondack-park style plan for letting it slowly revert to parkland and greenbelts.

[sam]

Daddeo, I get you, but that's different from the question of whether sprawl, in general, is sustainable. It has more to do with Detroit having been abandoned.

Detroit has been abandoned, but having grown up in Highland Park in the 50's and 60's and comparing it to the supposedly high end suburb I reside in outside of Washington DC you would at least think that the urban livability design features would be preserved in the areas that people escaped to. I grew up in a four family flat on Glendale Ave. There was a car dealership at the corner on Woodward Ave, followed by more buildings that were flats, a four story apartment building, a string of single family homes followed by a Fanny Farmer candy factory at the end of the block. HPHS was at the beginning of the next block. Just about every detail of this mixed use arrangement would be illegal now in any suburb. You would think that the layout and mixed use concept would translate to suburban design, but it did not. People like Kunstler say it was all the fault of the automobile, but I have never bought that. Basically, it was urban planning stupidity and Duany points all of this out. However, I guess if you did not grow up in the older more workable city environment and all you have is the suburban benchmark it is not all that obvious how screwed up it is. One thing is certain, though. Duany points out that the US is no longer a rich country, at least not in the way it was at the end of WWII. The world was indebted to us, and we basically generated, and had money to burn. The situation now is completely the opposite. We are in debt up to our ears to various sovereign wealth funds, and we can no longer make stupid and extravagant wasteful decisions about how we live. City grids, smaller houses, closer together, alleys, you name it, are in our future. I just hope I live long enough to see it.

[mwilbert]

However, I guess if you did not grow up in the older more workable city environment and all you have is the suburban benchmark it is not all that obvious how screwed up it is.

I would find this more persuasive if cities like New York, Boston, and San Francisco, [[or London or Berlin or Buenos Aires, for that matter), didn't still exist for comparison. It is pretty easy to see how screwed up suburbia is, but only if that is the way it looks to you. It seems to me that lots of people have a different vision of how they want to live, and don't see suburbia as screwed up.

[fryar]

I would find this more persuasive if cities like New York, Boston, and San Francisco, [[or London or Berlin or Buenos Aires, for that matter), didn't still exist for comparison. It is pretty easy to see how screwed up suburbia is, but only if that is the way it looks to you. It seems to me that lots of people have a different vision of how they want to live, and don't see suburbia as screwed up.

I get the last part...it's, to a significant degree, subjective, and different opinions about whether and how screwed up suburbia is that are at odds with each other can simultaneously be at odds and have validity.
But I don't get what you're comparing about the cities you mentioned to "suburbia" that makes sam's argument - that somewhat less dense areas can be more sustainable places to live if they have mixed-use development - less persuasive. New York for one, if we assume that means Manhattan, is much more dense than Highland Park, but is not a place that those who like "suburbia" are likely to prefer. I'm not trying to call you out, I just don't get. I mean, I guess they have kidnappings of soccer players in Buenos Aires, but that's cause that's where the soccer players are. Where are they gonna be, those soccer players, Los Areas Rurales? ;-)

[DetroitDad]

DetroitDad, downtown's not sustainable?

Downtown, in it's current state, probably could not provide long-term maintenance of well being. Downtown also has a very low ability to endure hardships.

[DetroitDad]

...It seems to me that lots of people have a different vision of how they want to live, and don't see suburbia as screwed up.

If you were to keep withdrawing money from your bank account without ever looking at the balance, you would probably wake up surprised one day with nothing, no matter what your vision was.