Observations of Detroit after a visit

[JoeGeds]

ghettopalmetto - It isn't the citys "responsibility" to tear the house down. You are right - it's the previous owners poor decisions that made that home the way it is. However, while not the cities responsibility, the city must do something to get rid of that home - even if it means paying tax dollars to do so. Also, your statement that the house on the right will soon look like the one the left and in need of demo also - that's true. But the homes must be removed because they are abandoned and dilapitated. While it is true it will look like a prairie and no one will build a single home there, that is OK. There is nothing wrong with that. We are at a time where the physical size of the city far outweighs the actual number of residents.

[Shai_Hulud]

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?

If you run the numbers? The house is a tear down. Fixing it would require six digits worth of labor and materials. Then it will be worth, what? $20,000?

Obviously, condition varies, but in neighborhoods like the one pictured, even a small amount of work is going to be a losing proposition.

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"?

We don't know. But from judging from the fact that they're trying, and failing, to sell things like http://auctions.buildingdetroit.org/...744-Burlingame we can assume that they're making efforts to save everything possible, at least in the neighborhoods they believe can be salvaged.

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.

What's your alternative, that the city spend thousands of dollars of my money to track down the owner who walked away ten years ago? Sue them, only to wind up with demo bill and the extra administrative costs?

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.

Pretty sure the house on the right is abandoned, and that I can see the back of several houses on the background. Depending on proximity to stable areas, services, amenities, we should probably be trying to demo entire blocks in that neighborhood, if not the entire thing.

[Hermod]

What's your alternative, that the city spend thousands of dollars of my money to track down the owner who walked away ten years ago? Sue them, only to wind up with demo bill and the extra administrative costs?

Plus, if you put pressure on the owner to come up with money [[and he considers the building and property to be worthless), he can just find a substance abuser wondering the streets who, in exchange for some "substances", will gladly go to a lawyers office and sign a transfer of the property from the owner to the bum. How can the city collect from a bum?

[Honky Tonk]

Plus, if you put pressure on the owner to come up with money [[and he considers the building and property to be worthless), he can just find a substance abuser wondering the streets who, in exchange for some "substances", will gladly go to a lawyers office and sign a transfer of the property from the owner to the bum. How can the city collect from a bum?

Yeah, Look @ the Kilpatrick incident........

[LP_85]

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"?

We have a pretty good idea of what the vacant homes look like and what condition they're in. I know your crack about George Jackson was snark, since he's been gone from the DEGC for five months, but it sure seems like the city's been doing a significant bit of research into addressing the problems. They put out a 300+ page report, and their approach certainly isn't to tear down every empty house with a few broken windows. I think a lot of this discussion has centered on what we think the city is doing, and not what it's actually doing. Are most of the houses being torn down perfectly habitable with a few renovations, or are they burned out, dangerous husks filled with garbage and who-knows-what-else?

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.

True, it doesn't necessarily result in new construction - but I think in many cases that's not the goal. The Detroit Future City plan is the only plan I'm aware of that attempts take a long view on future planning for the city, and it calls for significant changes in land usage for certain areas of the city. I don't think anybody is reasonably expecting a population explosion in the city of Detroit within the next several decades, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect any significant residential investment either, whether we leave every existing house or flatten whole neighborhoods. Obviously there are different areas with different strengths and needs, and I think things like the city's home auction program is a step in the right direction. But there is quite a bit more that needs to be done, and the scale of the blight problems this city is dealing with are certainly unprecedented.

[ghettopalmetto]

We have a pretty good idea of what the vacant homes look like and what condition they're in. I know your crack about George Jackson was snark, since he's been gone from the DEGC for five months, but it sure seems like the city's been doing a significant bit of research into addressing the problems. They put out a 300+ page report, and their approach certainly isn't to tear down every empty house with a few broken windows. I think a lot of this discussion has centered on what we think the city is doing, and not what it's actually doing. Are most of the houses being torn down perfectly habitable with a few renovations, or are they burned out, dangerous husks filled with garbage and who-knows-what-else?



True, it doesn't necessarily result in new construction - but I think in many cases that's not the goal. The Detroit Future City plan is the only plan I'm aware of that attempts take a long view on future planning for the city, and it calls for significant changes in land usage for certain areas of the city. I don't think anybody is reasonably expecting a population explosion in the city of Detroit within the next several decades, so I don't think it's reasonable to expect any significant residential investment either, whether we leave every existing house or flatten whole neighborhoods. Obviously there are different areas with different strengths and needs, and I think things like the city's home auction program is a step in the right direction. But there is quite a bit more that needs to be done, and the scale of the blight problems this city is dealing with are certainly unprecedented.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers. To some extent, I'm also playing Devil's Advocate. Sure, I recognize that there is a blight problem, and that there aren't exactly people banging down the doors to live in Detroit.

As has been mentioned, this program smacks of the Slum Clearance era in the 1950s and 1960s. And it's also incredibly expensive--especially for a city going through bankruptcy.

I can recall that former Mayor Dennis Archer always touted his program to "raze 40,000 abandoned houses". This is a continuation of the same effort. At what point do we "catch up"? Is that even possible?

I think what bothers me most is that, in every city I've seen that has ever redeveloped, it has always started with people fixing up old, existing houses. New construction only follows after a neighborhood has already begun to improve. [[Aside: This is similar to the concept where chain retailers only move into areas where local businesses are already successful.)

If there is nothing left to fix up, then how does the city ever hope to redevelop and perhaps grow again? And what happens in the future--does the City of Detroit bulldoze each house as soon as someone moves out?

I don't know for certain that demolitions are confined strictly to areas scheduled to be abandoned under the Future Detroit plan. The map of residential demolition orders is all over the place, including some areas that would seem to be geographically desirable for redevelopment.

It's terrific PR to "eliminate blight". But a true optimist would develop a long-term plan to grow the City of Detroit again, and have it work in conjunction with any blight removal efforts. Simply throwing demolition cash around after residents depart isn't, on its own merits, what I would call a winning strategy to alter the demand curve.

[LP_85]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers. To some extent, I'm also playing Devil's Advocate. Sure, I recognize that there is a blight problem, and that there aren't exactly people banging down the doors to live in Detroit.

As has been mentioned, this program smacks of the Slum Clearance era in the 1950s and 1960s. And it's also incredibly expensive--especially for a city going through bankruptcy.

I can recall that former Mayor Dennis Archer always touted his program to "raze 40,000 abandoned houses". This is a continuation of the same effort. At what point do we "catch up"? Is that even possible?

I hear what you're saying. The city certainly doesn't have the greatest track record on this. Though I disagree that the approach today is exactly the same as what was done in the 50s and 60s. Only 4400 of the more than 48,000 unoccupied structures are recommended for demolition by the blight task force - less than 10% [[though I admit that doesn't mean they won't recommend more). I know that the Bing administration was really pushing for "downsizing" the city and moving everybody out of the emptiest neighborhoods, which was ridiculous. But I think the city has taken a decidedly different approach within the last year, and is really trying to do more than just "demolish everything" in the hope for new development.

I think what bothers me most is that, in every city I've seen that has ever redeveloped, it has always started with people fixing up old, existing houses. New construction only follows after a neighborhood has already begun to improve. [[Aside: This is similar to the concept where chain retailers only move into areas where local businesses are already successful.)

If there is nothing left to fix up, then how does the city ever hope to redevelop and perhaps grow again? And what happens in the future--does the City of Detroit bulldoze each house as soon as someone moves out?

I don't know for certain that demolitions are confined strictly to areas scheduled to be abandoned under the Future Detroit plan. The map of residential demolition orders is all over the place, including some areas that would seem to be geographically desirable for redevelopment.

It's terrific PR to "eliminate blight". But a true optimist would develop a long-term plan to grow the City of Detroit again, and have it work in conjunction with any blight removal efforts. Simply throwing demolition cash around after residents depart isn't, on its own merits, what I would call a winning strategy to alter the demand curve.

I definitely agree with your first point here - the neighborhoods that already have a degree of stability and people to move in and take care of what's already there are going to have the best shot of flourishing in the future. And I think that's the goal of the home auction program. Whether it succeeds or not will take some time to tell.

And I also agree that mere PR to eliminate blight is not enough. It has to be backed up with real, thoughtful solutions. I'll admit I haven't drilled down deeply into either the blight plan or the Detroit Future City plan, but what I've skimmed from them makes me feel like the decision makers are interested in taking a more precise, nuanced approach.

That's the thing I really love about the Motor City Mapping project. For the first time the city has a comprehensive and detailed picture of what the problems are, and where they're at their worst. And it can be maintained and updated in real-time, allowing the city to change its response as conditions change. "Big Data" is going to have a big impact on how governments and businesses approach issues, everything from planning, to crime, to even education and transportation. It's also going to take input and attention from the public.

[iheartthed]

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?

In that photo it looks to me like Detroit already has removed blight and the neighborhood right along with it.

[Honky Tonk]

In that photo it looks to me like Detroit already has removed blight and the neighborhood right along with it.

Can I just ask you a question? By your response, If there were 4 streets, full of these kinds of homes, [[same condition as pictured) do you honestly feel THAT would have been a better shot @ populating those 4 streets? I mean, do you really think someone would say "Hey, my wife and I are going to buy one of these houses, move into the middle of this burned-out street, and restore it?

[iheartthed]

Can I just ask you a question? By your response, If there were 4 streets, full of these kinds of homes, [[same condition as pictured) do you honestly feel THAT would have been a better shot @ populating those 4 streets? I mean, do you really think someone would say "Hey, my wife and I are going to buy one of these houses, move into the middle of this burned-out street, and restore it?

A better shot than tearing down the entire neighborhood? Absolutely! I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

I think some of you may be misguided in the purpose of demolishing these neighborhoods. Detroit isn't demolishing to make these neighborhoods attractive for rehabilitation. Detroit is demolishing because they have completely given up on these ever being neighborhoods again. THAT's what I disagree with.

Detroit is doing two things that are troubling: 1) it's still in the practice of picking winners and losers from the top down [[and probably funneling off government money to well connected contractors in the process), and 2) it isn't really addressing the economic problem causing all of the land at its core to be worthless. Number 2 is really, really important for the future of Detroit or else they will end up demolishing the entire damned city in order to "save" it if they don't address issue number 2.

[Honky Tonk]

A better shot than tearing down the entire neighborhood? Absolutely! I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

I think some of you may be misguided in the purpose of demolishing these neighborhoods. Detroit isn't demolishing to make these neighborhoods attractive for rehabilitation. Detroit is demolishing because they have completely given up on these ever being neighborhoods again. THAT's what I disagree with.

Detroit is doing two things that are troubling: 1) it's still in the practice of picking winners and losers from the top down [[and probably funneling off government money to well connected contractors in the process), and 2) it isn't really addressing the economic problem causing all of the land at its core to be worthless. Number 2 is really, really important for the future of Detroit or else they will end up demolishing the entire damned city in order to "save" it if they don't address issue number 2.

I'll agree with your #2. I don't feel the City isn't doing anything to make current residents, or perspective residents, feel warm and fuzzy. Regarding #1, I have yet to hear or read about anyone complaining "I was going to buy and rehab that, but the City tore it down".

[loveDetroit]

Thanks Tonk. I can't lay claim to the pic. I pulled it from a Freep article about TARP funds freed up by the Feds for blight removal. $100 million for 5 MI cities. Here's the article for those who would like to educate themselves about where the money is coming from:

http://www.freep.com/article/2013060...t-land-detroit

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

Of course not, but let's dream a bit here and say for the sake of argument that a developer wants to build a "neighborhood" [[subdivision, in suburban terms). Don't you think he might prefer the prairie? An individual looking to build new would more likely desire a neighborhood that has well kept houses and a single or double lot or teardown.

The infrastructure [[gas, water, sewer, possibly power lines and road) are still there. Do you think the city sprang from the ground fully formed? It was built up from wilderness over time. It can happen again or go back to nature. In the mean time, why bitch about the people who are trying to do SOMETHING?

[ghettopalmetto]

Of course not, but let's dream a bit here and say for the sake of argument that a developer wants to build a "neighborhood" [[subdivision, in suburban terms). Don't you think he might prefer the prairie? An individual looking to build new would more likely desire a neighborhood that has well kept houses and a single or double lot or teardown.

No. This land isn't virgin prairie. It's littered with abandoned basements and God-knows-what in the ground. Excavating soil is expensive, but it's a heck of a lot cheaper than excavating concrete. There are too many unknowns--and too many potential budget-busters--to consider such sites as viable for new construction in the near future.

If the City had plans for these neighborhoods, that would be "something". Knocking down and leaving for dead is the lazy way out. But they'd rather perpetuate the belief of Demolition + Magic = Development [[We Hope!) than to think about what it would really take to make these neighborhoods viable again and [[God forbid) maybe attract a few new residents, instead of driving the remaining ones away.

[Bham1982]

Of course not, but let's dream a bit here and say for the sake of argument that a developer wants to build a "neighborhood" [[subdivision, in suburban terms). Don't you think he might prefer the prairie?

I suppose, yes, but why should public policy favor developers of suburban-style subdivisions? And why would developers of suburban-style subdivisions want to build in Detroit, when there are tons of desirable townships with oodles of empty land?

Again, if there's a market for new housing, then housing will be built. You don't need to demolish everything to encourage new housing. Birmingham [[I know, not the best comparison) hasn't built a subdivision in probably 60-70 years, but basically half the homes are of recent vintage [[again, infill).

In the mean time, why bitch about the people who are trying to do SOMETHING?

The point is that demolishing stuff isn't doing something. It's just destroying crap homes and replacing with crap lots. There's nothing gained.

The reason there's such a demo-mania is because our regional leaders don't really have the solution. "Destroy everything and then maybe stuff will happen" is basically a cop-out. and continuation of the same policies since the 1950's [[back then demolition centered on "slums" within Grand Blvd., now "slums" encompassing the entire city limits, so the entire city takes part in the "renewal").

[Shai_Hulud]

And why would developers of suburban-style subdivisions want to build in Detroit, when there are tons of desirable townships with oodles of empty land?

They wouldn't and infill is more expensive per house than large subdivisions, so I don't think that's all that likely either.

[loveDetroit]

I suppose, yes, but why should public policy favor developers of suburban-style subdivisions? And why would developers of suburban-style subdivisions want to build in Detroit, when there are tons of desirable townships with oodles of empty land?

Again, if there's a market for new housing, then housing will be built. You don't need to demolish everything to encourage new housing. Birmingham [[I know, not the best comparison) hasn't built a subdivision in probably 60-70 years, but basically half the homes are of recent vintage [[again, infill).



The point is that demolishing stuff isn't doing something. It's just destroying crap homes and replacing with crap lots. There's nothing gained.

The reason there's such a demo-mania is because our regional leaders don't really have the solution. "Destroy everything and then maybe stuff will happen" is basically a cop-out. and continuation of the same policies since the 1950's [[back then demolition centered on "slums" within Grand Blvd., now "slums" encompassing the entire city limits, so the entire city takes part in the "renewal").

If there were money in it, they would build on the moon. Public policy in Detroit has discouraged everything far too long. It's about time there was a change.

Show me the burned out ruins in Birmingham that have been there for 10+ years. Not even close to the same comparison. Or how about the blocks of abandoned homes.

This article is a bit old now [[2008), but still quite interesting. I know it's not news to this board, but it does show an example of potential for vacant land.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...-urban-prairie


Also interesting to note the corner "building" in this article is a remnant from the '67 riots. A burnt out husk that's still waiting for some TLC 40 years later. LOL

Have you been down town lately? We are on a wave. You can step off any time. I prefer optimism.

[Bham1982]

Show me the burned out ruins in Birmingham that have been there for 10+ years. Not even close to the same comparison. Or how about the blocks of abandoned homes.

You're completely missing the point, which is that the non-stop Detroit demolition derby is always being sold as delivering "shovel-ready" sites, when this is irrelevant. Developers want demand, not a "shovel ready" site. If there's demand for Detroit housing it will come, you don't "facilitate" a damn thing by tearing everything down.

Have you been down town lately? We are on a wave. You can step off any time. I prefer optimism.

The idea that Detroit's core is in some "boom" is only slightly less ridiculous than the "demolition is revitalization" gospel, but both concepts are almost universally accepted locally, facts be damned.

[Richard]

Most that are relocating are looking for older housing stock,cookie cutter new homes are a dime a dozen across the country.

I would love to divest and relocate to something like this http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2...ce-of-800k.php

other then it may bee a bit over priced as I have found 6 more in different cities in more original shape,non painted woodwork and original baths,priced from $35,000 up to $150k,comparatively the rust belt cities are pretty much the same.

The biggest difference is the property taxes are 1/3 of Detroit,so at this point what is the incentive investment wise? Between Orlando and Tampa I could divest and double my holdings on day one in Detroit,but in Detroit the property taxes on one house is equal to 4 here,we still get somewhat decent city services although the catch phrase is always "well because of budget cuts" and yes if it is not a gunshot expect to wait an hour for a non emergency.

That is why I am saying is for the quickest and biggest bang for the buck is to use the funds to incentive the property tax reduction,the city is not spending out of pocket and five years down the road it has gained the population to rebuild the tax base,in the meantime people have to eat,shop,buy clothes,hire contractors,dock their boat in the marina,day care etc. so the trickle down gives that boost directly in cash now to the local economy.

It all goes back to what does Detroit have to offer that cannot be found elsewhere comparatively to an outsider looking to relocate,forget about because you can get a house cheap,everybody knows cheap comes with reasons,and you can find cheap anywhere.

So the strength would be lots of stock to choose from in all price ranges to suit all budgets,people that are into vintage houses see them as individuals and each one is unique,so anytime you drive down the street past one you always see something different,not so much in the burbs,everybody is different but most relocating are doing so because of existing neighborhood vintage stock,it is an asset to a city,milk it.