Observations of Detroit after a visit

[Shai_Hulud]

Actually, looking at that demolition site. Motor City Mapping, there aren't a lot of housing that needs demolishing.
4,400 is not a lot of housing to demolish. Times $5000 per house = $22Mil
https://www.motorcitymapping.org/#t=...=detroit&f=all

I worked on this project, and I felt their definitions were generous. For example, an unoccupied house with a clear point of entry, but no structural or roof damage, not missing any windows should be marked as good condition.

So while the structure may be intact what is the real value of this house when I know for a fact the furnace, water heater, copper pipes, copper wire, light fixtures and plumbing fixtures have literally been ripped out? When this is a two bedroom bungalow in a not great neighborhood? And there are four other houses like this on this block?

[DetroitPlanner]

Actually, looking at that demolition site. Motor City Mapping, there aren't a lot of housing that needs demolishing.
4,400 is not a lot of housing to demolish. Times $5000 per house = $22Mil
https://www.motorcitymapping.org/#t=...=detroit&f=all

To a broke @$$ City, $22 million is serious scratch. $5k is a pretty old estimate. That was good 20 years ago. Up it to $8k.

[Richard]

Where can anybody walk away to anymore,due to budget cuts in most cities unless there is gun fire a 2 hour response is not uncommon,and the burbs are falling fast.

[Gistok]

Where can anybody walk away to anymore,due to budget cuts in most cities unless there is gun fire a 2 hour response is not uncommon,and the burbs are falling fast.

I checked online, and could not find any statistics to confirm you assumption. I think that suburban response time [[in the vast majority of suburbs)... is still less than 5 minutes.

[Dan Wesson]

Detroit needs to tear down these rat traps domestic dwellings. Then there is a need for factory built housing and a factory in Detroit to build them.

Cost effective all the way around.

[nain rouge]

Now, Detroit's decline is so out of control, it's easy to lose sight of the true causes. Really, you have to go back to the late '40s, when sprawl hit fifth gear. Detroit always had a few bad neighborhoods, like any big city. The cycle of sprawl, in which older neighborhoods - usually in need of a bit of sprucing up - are abandoned by anyone with money for newer neighborhoods, left the city weak. The "criminal element", as it were, now had a plethora of enfeebled hosts it could latch onto. And so it did. The good people couldn't get enough momentum in that environment to stave of the decline.

The rest is history.

By the early '60s, Detroit was basically screwed. Urban renewal projects were last ditch efforts, bold reactions to a bold problem. And it didn't work. We still don't really know what to do.

[nain rouge]

Bham1982: You're taking a very literal view of the broken windows theory. According to Wikipedia, "The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior."

Sorry, but blocks of abandoned or mostly abandoned houses are severe examples of urban disorder and set very poor norms.

[Bham1982]

B
Sorry, but blocks of abandoned or mostly abandoned houses are severe examples of urban disorder and set very poor norms.

True, and blocks of vacant lots are also severe examples of urban disorder and also set very poor norms.

So if you really had some wildly expanded real estate-oriented view of Broken Windows, you would rehab buildings, and have them occupied. You wouldn't replace one disorder with another one.

But this is all nonsense. Crime originates from occupied homes, not vacant homes or vacant lots. The highest crime neighborhood in Detroit is far NE Detroit, which, until recently, had very little abandonment. If you really want to take a real-estate oriented view of tracking high crime, just look for occupied communities that are poor and full of the 16-to-25 age male cohort. That's where you'll find the crime. The bombed out areas are much safer, and have few teenagers/young men.

Broken Windows is useless in a city like Detroit anyways. If you can't cover the major crimes, you don't waste time with fare beating and graffiti.

[nain rouge]

Bham, abandoned, dilapidated homes - at the least - are fire hazards, encourage neighborhood rodent/pest infestations, and lower property values. Even in a crime free community, I would say that's almost always true.

Beyond that, abandoned homes may house irresponsible squatters/drug dealers, serve as a place to engage in illicit activity, and demoralize a community. You can argue that isn't the case, but we all know those things do happen.

Ask yourself a question: would you live on a block littered with abandoned, structurally unsound homes? And if so, do you really believe that you'd resist demolition? After, say, watching your kids play in front of an abandoned house as rats or mice scurry about? Or knowing that teenagers occasionally burn down abandoned homes for "fun"?

I agree that the bombed out communities are, in a sense, safer than some of Detroit's more notorious highly populated neighborhood. But only because there are less people. Everyone moved out to get away from the abandoned homes, seeking a more a stable neighborhood. Unfortunately, however, some don't have enough money to keep up with sprawl.

But do you think for a moment that gentrified/gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, DC, and even Cleveland all had virgin greenfield land with stellar services before people decided to move in?

None of those cities were as bad as Detroit is. There exists, eventually, a point of no return for certain neighborhoods.

And Cleveland has yet to bottom out. While viable neighborhoods will be saved, it too has doomed neighborhoods.

[Bham1982]

B
Ask yourself a question: would you live on a block littered with abandoned, structurally unsound homes? And if so, do you really believe that you'd resist demolition?

If my only options are urban prairie or abandoned homes, I would take abandoned homes every time. Obviously either option is bad, but urban prairie means the neighborhood is guaranteed doomed, while blighted housing means the neighborhood is possibly [[in the case of Detroit probably) doomed.

[jackie5275]

Beyond that, abandoned homes may house irresponsible squatters/drug dealers, serve as a place to engage in illicit activity, and demoralize a community. You can argue that isn't the case, but we all know those things do happen.

They sure do. I have a friend in Warrendale who regularly tells me about the comings & goings of questionable folks in the vacant houses on her block.

[Honky Tonk]

They sure do. I have a friend in Warrendale who regularly tells me about the comings & goings of questionable folks in the vacant houses on her block.

There'a a duplex, empty but in good shape, near where I live. For the last month or so, I started noticing guys "hanging out" in the backyard part, when I drove by. The yard has now become seriously littered. So far the structure looks secure. I'm guessing by Fall it'll have occupants.

[nain rouge]

But I don't see these kinds of people willing to invest in a neighborhood where the City is about to tear down half the block Just Because. That's not appealing to anyone.

See, I kinda disagree with you there. I believe there is a lot more deterring investors than just the threat of bulldozers. Such as, for example, a lack of adequate services; crime; legacy costs; an environment littered with brownfields, as opposed to suburban greenfields.

[ghettopalmetto]

See, I kinda disagree with you there. I believe there is a lot more deterring investors than just the threat of bulldozers. Such as, for example, a lack of adequate services; crime; legacy costs; an environment littered with brownfields, as opposed to suburban greenfields. [/COLOR]

I'm not going to argue that services in Detroit are adequate. They are not. But do you think for a moment that gentrified/gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago, Philadelphia, Brooklyn, DC, and even Cleveland all had virgin greenfield land with stellar services before people decided to move in?

Maybe I'm taking a longer-term view of things here. I believe that the focus should be on, "How do we make these areas attractive to people so they can reinhabit these neighborhoods?" instead of pre-emptively euthanizing them. Part [[but only part) of the reason Detroit is in bankruptcy is because it keeps spending millions of dollars on things that don't generate new revenue. $2 BILLION? To get absolutely NOTHING in return? Where the hell do I sign up for that amazing deal?

So really, this cycle feeds itself.

[loveDetroit]

Have any of you who worry that if dilapidated houses are demoed that the neighborhood is forever doomed to be urban prairie ever heard of new construction? Sure, not everyone can afford to build from the ground up, but a desirable location with vacant land has possibilities. A pile of bricks with broken concrete and a collapsed roof requires removal, not renovation.

Viable houses are for sale all over the city. Removing blight doesn't change that. Should the house on the left be saved? Do YOU want to move into the house on the right with the lovely neighbor on your left waiting for renovation?

[Honky Tonk]

Have any of you who worry that if dilapidated houses are demoed that the neighborhood is forever doomed to be urban prairie ever heard of new construction? Sure, not everyone can afford to build from the ground up, but a desirable location with vacant land has possibilities. A pile of bricks with broken concrete and a collapsed roof requires removal, not renovation.

Viable houses are for sale all over the city. Removing blight doesn't change that. Should the house on the left be saved? Do YOU want to move into the house on the right with the lovely neighbor on your left waiting for renovation?

Great photo and good post. I get the idea from reading some of these replies that people are posting who either never set foot in Detroit, or have an unrealistic idea of what it would actually take to rehab the house on the left. Most of the blighted homes are like the one on the left. 40's, quickly and cheaply built, to satisfy the growing need for housing during the boom years. Very costly to maintain and heat these days.

[Hermod]

Great photo and good post. I get the idea from reading some of these replies that people are posting who either never set foot in Detroit, or have an unrealistic idea of what it would actually take to rehab the house on the left. Most of the blighted homes are like the one on the left. 40's, quickly and cheaply built, to satisfy the growing need for housing during the boom years. Very costly to maintain and heat these days.

I would put those houses at pre-1940 and most likely 1920-1929.

[Honky Tonk]

I would put those houses at pre-1940 and most likely 1920-1929.

You're probably right. I grew up in one of those, and my parents kept it well maintained. Even so, in the summer it was sweltering hot, in December through February, bitterly cold, with the furnace, and later added A/C running ragged. Remarkably, it's still standing. But if it was neglected and burned, I couldn't see spending any sizable investment to "restore" it.

[Bham1982]

Have any of you who worry that if dilapidated houses are demoed that the neighborhood is forever doomed to be urban prairie ever heard of new construction?

There's nothing preventing new construction when there's already a building sitting on the lot.

And the more homes you remove from a neighborhood, the lower the chances anyone will do urban infill, because there's no longer any "urban" and nothing to "infill".

[Honky Tonk]

There's nothing preventing new construction when there's already a building sitting on the lot.

Then answer this, why aren't the homes @ Morgan Waterfront Estates selling? Nothing prevented those homes from being built and sold. I mean other then being built next to a coal powered electric plant, and assorted coal piles. Technically, yes, you can build new homes next to standing blighted houses. Realistically, it's going to be a hard sell.

[Bham1982]

Then answer this, why aren't the homes @ Morgan Waterfront Estates selling?

What do you want me to answer? I never said I have confidence in the Detroit housing market, I just said that demolishing stuff does not spur construction or economic growth. If you want to demolish, fine, but don't expect anything but the world's crappiest exurb.

[Honky Tonk]

What do you want me to answer? I never said I have confidence in the Detroit housing market, I just said that demolishing stuff does not spur construction or economic growth. If you want to demolish, fine, but don't expect anything but the world's crappiest exurb.

I already told you what I wanted you to answer, so why ask? Things being in Detroit the way they are, I don't have a lot of confidence in it's housing market either, but your consistent comments about "destroying" housing stock through demolition, don't make sense to me. Even IF a developer should decide to drop a modern cookie-cutter subdivision into the middle of a Detroit prairie, they're going to have a hard time convincing the average homeowner to buy one, especially if the sub is surrounded by homes looking like the example posted. And if the developer doesn't think he can sell them, well, then they're less likely to "develop". Back to Morgan Estates, they built $360K homes in the middle of a coal pile, but they are on the water. I think now, there are about 3 occupied. Why? Because it's hard to convince a $360K buyer to invest their money in one of those without some sort of foreseeable return.

[ghettopalmetto]

Have any of you who worry that if dilapidated houses are demoed that the neighborhood is forever doomed to be urban prairie ever heard of new construction? Sure, not everyone can afford to build from the ground up, but a desirable location with vacant land has possibilities. A pile of bricks with broken concrete and a collapsed roof requires removal, not renovation.

Viable houses are for sale all over the city. Removing blight doesn't change that. Should the house on the left be saved? Do YOU want to move into the house on the right with the lovely neighbor on your left waiting for renovation?

A few comments:

1. The house to the left of the photo is certainly far gone. IF one runs the numbers, it probably doesn't make sense to demo and rebuild the second floor and roof.

2. Do we know that ALL of the 40,000+ [[or whatever number it is today) vacant homes in the City of Detroit look like this? What's the cataloging process? Given the cost of demolition, are there reasonable efforts to determine if any of the houses are worth saving? Or do we just have George Jackson walking down the street declaring every vacant house "obsolete" and "structurally unsound"?

3. How is it the City's responsibility to tear this house down? The owner didn't maintain it, it burned, and there was no property insurance? Not the City's fault now, is it? But they'll spend $10,000 of your money to tear it down, because the owner was too cheap to buy property insurance.

4. Demolition does not necessarily result in new construction. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay to excavate an existing basement on an "empty" lot. Given the amount of prairie visible in the photo, it's only a matter of time before the house on the right is abandoned and ends up looking like the house on the left. The dragon chasing continues.

[loveDetroit]

A few comments:

1. The house to the left of the photo is certainly far gone. IF one runs the numbers, it probably doesn't make sense to demo and rebuild the second floor and roof.

2. Do we know that ALL of the 40,000+ [[or whatever number it is today) vacant homes in the City of Detroit look like this? What's the cataloging process? Given the cost of demolition, are there reasonable efforts to determine if any of the houses are worth saving? Or do we just have George Jackson walking down the street declaring every vacant house "obsolete" and "structurally unsound"?

3. How is it the City's responsibility to tear this house down? The owner didn't maintain it, it burned, and there was no property insurance? Not the City's fault now, is it? But they'll spend $10,000 of your money to tear it down, because the owner was too cheap to buy property insurance.

4. Demolition does not necessarily result in new construction. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay to excavate an existing basement on an "empty" lot. Given the amount of prairie visible in the photo, it's only a matter of time before the house on the right is abandoned and ends up looking like the house on the left. The dragon chasing continues.

1. I doubt the first floor is worth saving either.

2. Silly me, I trust the people involved are pulling weeds and leaving the veggies room to breathe.

3. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. YES take my tax dollars and help make the city a better place. Brings a tear of pride to my eye and a smile to my face.

4. Maybe not, but it doesn't hurt.

[ghettopalmetto]

1. I doubt the first floor is worth saving either.

2. Silly me, I trust the people involved are pulling weeds and leaving the veggies room to breathe.

3. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. YES take my tax dollars and help make the city a better place. Brings a tear of pride to my eye and a smile to my face.

4. Maybe not, but it doesn't hurt.

Well, that's fine. You're allowed to think what you want. But when Detroit is little more than a bankrupt 139 square miles of tall grass and open fields, I hope you're still smiling and crying tears of joy.