Observations of Detroit after a visit

[Chicago48]

Okay, so pick your favorite demolished building. The Lafayette. The Madison-Lenox. The Tuller Hotel. Tiger Stadium. Motown Building. Any redevelopment on those sites yet?

The truth is, if the lack of open fields was inhibiting development, then you wouldn't see *anyone* renovating existing buildings. So maybe demolition isn't so necessary for redevelopment to take place, is it?

My initial question concerned HOUSING, not buildings.

[Chicago48]

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

[ghettopalmetto]

My initial question concerned HOUSING, not buildings.

It's the same thought process: Demolish Now and Pray. This, despite fluctuations in real estate demand being far more elastic than construction timelines.

What seems to be lost in this entire equation is that the nation is just beginning to emerge from the worst economic recession in over 7 decades. That the decision to demolish--whether a residence or a larger structure--is being made at this one blip in time is short-sighted, to say the least. Demolition is the only way to guarantee a Zero Return on Investment.

[animatedmartian]

It's the same thought process: Demolish Now and Pray. This, despite fluctuations in real estate demand being far more elastic than construction timelines.

What seems to be lost in this entire equation is that the nation is just beginning to emerge from the worst economic recession in over 7 decades. That the decision to demolish--whether a residence or a larger structure--is being made at this one blip in time is short-sighted, to say the least. Demolition is the only way to guarantee a Zero Return on Investment.

But you're basically arguing the same thing with "preserve and pray". Where is the money for the upkeep of all this property going to come from if we're just going to hold on to it until demand catches up? What if another recession occurs, what then? With that logic, Detroit would have 20 times the vacant buildings it does now because essentially no one would have demolished anything from 1960. Like the city government would just hold all that property until 2 million people wanted to live in the city again. That seems less realistic than having miles of vacant lots instead.

[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.

[ghettopalmetto]

But you're basically arguing the same thing with "preserve and pray". Where is the money for the upkeep of all this property going to come from if we're just going to hold on to it until demand catches up? What if another recession occurs, what then? With that logic, Detroit would have 20 times the vacant buildings it does now because essentially no one would have demolished anything from 1960. Like the city government would just hold all that property until 2 million people wanted to live in the city again. That seems less realistic than having miles of vacant lots instead.

It's not the role of the City to be in the real estate business, is it? Certainly, if they can spend millions on demolitions, they can require property owners to maintain their properties in accordance with the Building Code, yes?

But as we've seen, the City of Detroit has a habit of declaring buildings "structurally unsound", and proceeding with demolition as a pre-ordained conclusion. It's not that I oppose demolition in all cases. It's that demolition is the City's answer in EVERY case. That costs a lot of money, which the City doesn't have. It produces absolutely nothing of value in return. And it drastically decreases any demand that may have existed for renovation. As you well know, a concentrated area of renovated houses encourages new construction and new businesses, by creating an area of high demand.

Several years ago, we were told that the Lafayette Building *must* be demolished, because there was no demand for the space. Well just a short time later, we're seeing the David Whitney Building being renovated--a thought that was once unthinkable. The Lafayette Building can't be renovated because, um, it's gone. The same holds true for residential neighborhoods. Once they're gone, they're gone. No Superman developer is going to come in and build a brand-new neighborhood on the urban prairie.

And yes, I know the arguments about drugs, prostitutions, and copper theft. But that's a policing problem, not a function inherent to abandoned homes. I live next door to a house that's been empty for a year and a half, and the only person I've seen go in there was a contractor who bushwhacked the yard.

[Richard]

But you're basically arguing the same thing with "preserve and pray". Where is the money for the upkeep of all this property going to come from if we're just going to hold on to it until demand catches up? What if another recession occurs, what then? With that logic, Detroit would have 20 times the vacant buildings it does now because essentially no one would have demolished anything from 1960. Like the city government would just hold all that property until 2 million people wanted to live in the city again. That seems less realistic than having miles of vacant lots instead.

In my other post I have the programs mixed up,the one where the money was sent back was from the crack years,the currant one or the hardest hit,where the $500 million comes in was to help the neighborhoods hardest hit in the mortgage meltdown.

Yes the monies from that program can be used for the boarding and securing of vacant properties.So where the money comes from is not the question more so how is it being spent.

One can sit there forever waiting for the throngs to reappear but without giving them a reason you will be waiting for a long time,take away the moving from the suburbs to the city as that does not count.

Relocate to Detroit where you can choose your choice of a vacant lot,pretty much available in anywhere U.S.A..

Relocate to Detroit and receive your city owned fixer upper and $25.000 towards rehab costs and a 60% property tax reduction for ten years.

Yes they are doing that locally,but in many cities there are many who are priced out of home ownership forever,use that to give somebody incentive or a reason to move.The only thing I see is New York offering 10 year tax free for business to relocate.

How does the city lose? You have $500 million to offset so no cash out of pocket,you now have re-established neighborhoods,you have increased the taxpayer base for goods and services etc.The money and the opportunity are there right now.

It is not rocket science,a lemon will always be a lemon until it is cut to make lemon aid.Or it can be the race to be the city of vacant land waiting for the glass slipper.

[Shai_Hulud]

And yes, I know the arguments about drugs, prostitutions, and copper theft. But that's a policing problem, not a function inherent to abandoned homes. I live next door to a house that's been empty for a year and a half, and the only person I've seen go in there was a contractor who bushwhacked the yard.

Do you expect that the remaining people who live in neighborhoods that aren't so well policed are going to tolerate all of the above forever? Or will they too eventually walk away?

[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.

[animatedmartian]

In my other post I have the programs mixed up,the one where the money was sent back was from the crack years,the currant one or the hardest hit,where the $500 million comes in was to help the neighborhoods hardest hit in the mortgage meltdown.

Yes the monies from that program can be used for the boarding and securing of vacant properties.So where the money comes from is not the question more so how is it being spent.

One can sit there forever waiting for the throngs to reappear but without giving them a reason you will be waiting for a long time,take away the moving from the suburbs to the city as that does not count.

Relocate to Detroit where you can choose your choice of a vacant lot,pretty much available in anywhere U.S.A..

Relocate to Detroit and receive your city owned fixer upper and $25.000 towards rehab costs and a 60% property tax reduction for ten years.

Yes they are doing that locally,but in many cities there are many who are priced out of home ownership forever,use that to give somebody incentive or a reason to move.The only thing I see is New York offering 10 year tax free for business to relocate.

How does the city lose? You have $500 million to offset so no cash out of pocket,you now have re-established neighborhoods,you have increased the taxpayer base for goods and services etc.The money and the opportunity are there right now.

It is not rocket science,a lemon will always be a lemon until it is cut to make lemon aid.Or it can be the race to be the city of vacant land waiting for the glass slipper.

Tax incentives only go so far. It's not a sustainable way to attract residents and business as eventually those incentives dry up. Otherwise the city doesn't really gain a whole lot in tax revenue. 60% is a lot. Multiplied over multiple residents and the city only incrementally increases the tax base. And then what of the residents already still living in Detroit? Won't they see that as unfair and demand tax reductions themselves? It's a very slippery slope [[eg: complaints about investments/tax incentives currently made downtown not helping the whole city).

[animatedmartian]

It's not the role of the City to be in the real estate business, is it? Certainly, if they can spend millions on demolitions, they can require property owners to maintain their properties in accordance with the Building Code, yes?

But as we've seen, the City of Detroit has a habit of declaring buildings "structurally unsound", and proceeding with demolition as a pre-ordained conclusion. It's not that I oppose demolition in all cases. It's that demolition is the City's answer in EVERY case. That costs a lot of money, which the City doesn't have. It produces absolutely nothing of value in return. And it drastically decreases any demand that may have existed for renovation. As you well know, a concentrated area of renovated houses encourages new construction and new businesses, by creating an area of high demand.

Several years ago, we were told that the Lafayette Building *must* be demolished, because there was no demand for the space. Well just a short time later, we're seeing the David Whitney Building being renovated--a thought that was once unthinkable. The Lafayette Building can't be renovated because, um, it's gone. The same holds true for residential neighborhoods. Once they're gone, they're gone. No Superman developer is going to come in and build a brand-new neighborhood on the urban prairie.

And yes, I know the arguments about drugs, prostitutions, and copper theft. But that's a policing problem, not a function inherent to abandoned homes. I live next door to a house that's been empty for a year and a half, and the only person I've seen go in there was a contractor who bushwhacked the yard.

Well shoot, I could have bought a Lamborghini if I only hit the lotto several years ago. But I still haven't hit the lotto and can only afford a Ford Fiesta.

So you're saying the City was supposed to accurately predict several years ago that demand would rise and someone would renovate the Lafayette Building? Again, why hold on to property until it's convenient for the market? It still affects people in the here and now and decisions have to be made in the here and now based on the circumstances of the here and now. There can only be so much planning for the future. Which, in fact, the city expects continued population decline despite improved services which means still more demolitions. Maybe less in the downtown area, but definitely other parts of the city will still see continued losses.

[Richard]

Tax incentives only go so far. It's not a sustainable way to attract residents and business as eventually those incentives dry up. Otherwise the city doesn't really gain a whole lot in tax revenue. 60% is a lot. Multiplied over multiple residents and the city only incrementally increases the tax base. And then what of the residents already still living in Detroit? Won't they see that as unfair and demand tax reductions themselves? It's a very slippery slope [[eg: complaints about investments/tax incentives currently made downtown not helping the whole city).

Valid points.

Say for instance you live in Corktown a section considered on the rise or more stable,in order to get to your residence you have to pass through an unstable neighborhood,one that would make you a bit worried if your car broke down,would you consider it a waste of taxpayer monies to offer incentive's to improve that neighborhood which in turn also improves your neighborhood and quality of life and the city as a whole.

Your answer is how that segment feels.Keeping in mind downtown is being handled, this is about resolving the surrounding and supporting neighborhoods without destroying what is left.

Downtown will go only so far without strong supporting neighborhoods.

Where the property tax reduction biased comes in is actually from city service providers,sometimes they feel because you are receiving a reduction you are not entitled to the same level of services as others.It is not systematic it becomes a few within the system trying to call the shots.

So you have spent the last two years making tough city decisions to lay the foundations,one of them was the city council and direct representation,that is/you are,their job.

When you look at a tax base one must look at what one also spends in the local economy,bars,restaurants,hardware stores,visiting and supporting museums etc,that is the trickle down return.

The neighborhoods need a larger disposable income base to offset,the $25,000 goes directly back into the local economy not a game changer but will at least put food on a few tables that was not there before.

The use of You and your are not meant to be directed to you personally or ill intended.

[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.

[Chicago48]

In my other post I have the programs mixed up,the one where the money was sent back was from the crack years,the currant one or the hardest hit,where the $500 million comes in was to help the neighborhoods hardest hit in the mortgage meltdown.

Yes the monies from that program can be used for the boarding and securing of vacant properties.So where the money comes from is not the question more so how is it being spent.

One can sit there forever waiting for the throngs to reappear but without giving them a reason you will be waiting for a long time,take away the moving from the suburbs to the city as that does not count.

Relocate to Detroit where you can choose your choice of a vacant lot,pretty much available in anywhere U.S.A..

Relocate to Detroit and receive your city owned fixer upper and $25.000 towards rehab costs and a 60% property tax reduction for ten years.

Yes they are doing that locally,but in many cities there are many who are priced out of home ownership forever,use that to give somebody incentive or a reason to move.The only thing I see is New York offering 10 year tax free for business to relocate.

How does the city lose? You have $500 million to offset so no cash out of pocket,you now have re-established neighborhoods,you have increased the taxpayer base for goods and services etc.The money and the opportunity are there right now.

It is not rocket science,a lemon will always be a lemon until it is cut to make lemon aid.Or it can be the race to be the city of vacant land waiting for the glass slipper.

The problem with "relocate to Detroit where you choose your choice" is that you need people to MOVE IN. You need a load of businesses to move in. Detroit is still losing population, so I don't see the population turning around anytime in the next 5 years.
Unless -- the city demands that those who buy land and/or houses MUST reside in the city [[or move to the city) and must show residency every year while owning the property. Until the city becomes "trendy" like a Minneapolis, it will still be shunned by young [[white) people who will want to go to Chicago, Minneapolis, those type of cities. The people moving in now are doing so because of their jobs with GM or Quicken. And those companies had to sweeten the pie to get them to the city. Otherwise, those folks wd be living in Royal Oak, those type suburbs.

[Bham1982]

Do you expect that the remaining people who live in neighborhoods that aren't so well policed are going to tolerate all of the above forever? Or will they too eventually walk away?

None of that bad stuff is in Detroit because of abandoned buildings; it's in Detroit because there are some bad folks screwing up stuff for everyone else.

The highest crime neighborhoods in Detroit actually have a low proportion of abandoned homes, which makes perfect sense. People commit crimes, structures don't commit crimes. Once neighborhoods empty out, crime usually drops.

[iheartthed]

Well shoot, I could have bought a Lamborghini if I only hit the lotto several years ago. But I still haven't hit the lotto and can only afford a Ford Fiesta.

So you're saying the City was supposed to accurately predict several years ago that demand would rise and someone would renovate the Lafayette Building? Again, why hold on to property until it's convenient for the market? It still affects people in the here and now and decisions have to be made in the here and now based on the circumstances of the here and now. There can only be so much planning for the future. Which, in fact, the city expects continued population decline despite improved services which means still more demolitions. Maybe less in the downtown area, but definitely other parts of the city will still see continued losses.

I think it's pretty ironic that we're having this conversation on the same day that the Detroit News published a story about vacant buildings being absorbed in downtown Detroit.

Detroit —In August 2009, there were 48 big empty buildings downtown. Walk through the city’s central business district today and it’s hard to believe there were that many just five years ago.Eleven of those buildings are now occupied. Another 20 are being renovated or have been bought with plans for redevelopment. Four have been demolished. That means 13 of those original 48 are still languishing, waiting for someone to devise a strategy to revive them or, in a few instances, possibly tear them down.


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz3BalQnEol

I know we're talking about neighborhoods here but you are using the exact same logic that people used to defend demolitions downtown. It really should not be the priority of the city to be in the demolition business. I believe the appropriate idiom is "penny wise pound foolish."

[ghettopalmetto]

So you're saying the City was supposed to accurately predict several years ago that demand would rise and someone would renovate the Lafayette Building? Again, why hold on to property until it's convenient for the market? It still affects people in the here and now and decisions have to be made in the here and now based on the circumstances of the here and now. There can only be so much planning for the future.

Yes. Anyone with half a brain knew that we were in the worst recession in over 7 decades. This isn't rocket science.

The problem with your approach [[as it is identical to the City's approach) is that it considers extremely short-term circumstances and ignores the long-term. Real estate cycles are far more fluid than the permanent changes Detroit has wreaked upon its own cityscape. This is not Sim City, where you can demolish an old house or building, and something new magically pops up.

I know of some cities that have established land banks [[independent of city government) whose sole task it is to find buyers for distressed properties. After conducting a standard evaluation process, homes that can be rehabilitated are put up for auction, with starting bids often less than $10,000. Say someone is able to score a house for $5000. An owner-occupant may be able to put $40,000 of work into the house to get it into a state of good repair, and actually increase the real estate value--vis-a-vis losing the value permanently to demolition. And yes, after the evaluation process, some houses do get demolished, but not *all* of them.

Maybe you could pose your "buy-and-hold" question to any of the slumlords that Detroit refuses to cite for improper property maintenance.

Which, in fact, the city expects continued population decline despite improved services which means still more demolitions. Maybe less in the downtown area, but definitely other parts of the city will still see continued losses.

And this helpless loser, "woe is me", there's-nothing-we-can-do attitude is precisely why Detroit is in the shape it's in. The City finds money to demolish houses and buildings. The City finds money to construct a billionaire's hockey palace. But it can't shore up its own neighborhoods? That's crap. Who's going to want to move into Detroit when the city government has a defeatist can't-do attitude? Giving Up doesn't exactly scream optimism and opportunity, does it?

And yes, if Detroit keeps demolishing neighborhoods for prairie, it *will* continue to lose population, as there will be no houses into which people can move. So you see, this philosophy of Demo First, Ask Questions Later is of the self-fulfilling variety. After decades of this practice, has it made Detroit a better place?

[JoeGeds]

For those arguimg against the demo of these homes, are you aware of the condition of these "homes" that are slated for demo? About half of them, I can't even get in [[part of my job requires me to). They are too dangerous. Literally falling apart, and presenting a danger to people. Yes, some are worse than others, and I have seen homes that are in better shape than others structurally speaking. But to renovate them and bring them into compliance would cost 10X than the house is worth. Homes that have doors, windows, sound roofs, all the plumbing, fixtures, HVAC stuff - these homes are not being demolished. Homes with a caved-in roof, fire damaged, all of the fixtures/metal,HVAC stuff, have all been ripped out, exposed to the elements - these are the "homes" that are being demolished, for the most part.

[ghettopalmetto]

For those arguimg against the demo of these homes, are you aware of the condition of these "homes" that are slated for demo? About half of them, I can't even get in [[part of my job requires me to). They are too dangerous. Literally falling apart, and presenting a danger to people. Yes, some are worse than others, and I have seen homes that are in better shape than others structurally speaking. But to renovate them and bring them into compliance would cost 10X than the house is worth.

You know this because you've seen repair estimates? Or you're just guessing? It's an important distinction to make.

Maintenance of the property is still the responsibility of the owner, regardless of condition. If the residence is in an unsafe condition, the City has powers to issue citations and to use the legal system. If the owner is the City of Detroit [[via tax liens), then they have a responsibility to the taxpayer to determine whether demolition or renovation is more cost-effective. Is there even a shred of evidence that any of this is taking place?

Homes that have doors, windows, sound roofs, all the plumbing, fixtures, HVAC stuff - these homes are not being demolished. Homes with a caved-in roof, fire damaged, all of the fixtures/metal,HVAC stuff, have all been ripped out, exposed to the elements - these are the "homes" that are being demolished, for the most part.

This seems to contradict what the Original Poster wrote, when he described residents being "bought out" by the City of Detroit so their homes could be demolished. So who are we to believe? Given the City's track record, I'm inclined to believe the Original Poster.

When the City of Detroit very publicly and repeatedly proclaims that it's on a mission to demolish tens of thousands of homes, that's not an indication of any desire to conduct rehabilitation--or even an objective evaluation process.

[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.

[Bham1982]

For those arguimg against the demo of these homes, are you aware of the condition of these "homes" that are slated for demo?

Just to be clear, I am not arguing against the demo of these homes, I'm just saying it isn't a revitalization tool, isn't going to cut crime, and isn't going to do all these magical promised things. It's basically eliminating neighborhoods bit by bit, that's all.

[animatedmartian]

Yes. Anyone with half a brain knew that we were in the worst recession in over 7 decades. This isn't rocket science.

That still doesn't answer whether the City was supposed to accurately predict when we would recover from the recession. In fact, Detroit still hasn't recovered the total employment numbers that it had pre-recession or even from the 90s. Anyone looking at the data would certainly think that Detroit isn't at the same economic level it was in previous decades. It would be fairly easy to reason then that demand for housing [[and downtown office space) would be weaker than it has been in previous decades.

The problem with your approach [[as it is identical to the City's approach) is that it considers extremely short-term circumstances and ignores the long-term. Real estate cycles are far more fluid than the permanent changes Detroit has wreaked upon its own cityscape. This is not Sim City, where you can demolish an old house or building, and something new magically pops up.

Of course not, there has to be demand for it. Which I've explained in my first paragraph that Detroit has weak demand. People looking for something and not finding it is called demand which you seem to imply that Detroit has an abundance of.

I know of some cities that have established land banks [[independent of city government) whose sole task it is to find buyers for distressed properties. After conducting a standard evaluation process, homes that can be rehabilitated are put up for auction, with starting bids often less than $10,000. Say someone is able to score a house for $5000. An owner-occupant may be able to put $40,000 of work into the house to get it into a state of good repair, and actually increase the real estate value--vis-a-vis losing the value permanently to demolition. And yes, after the evaluation process, some houses do get demolished, but not *all* of them.

That's good and all but that doesn't change the fact you still need a growing economy for that to pay off.

Maybe you could pose your "buy-and-hold" question to any of the slumlords that Detroit refuses to cite for improper property maintenance.

Again, what all is that going to accomplish if these slumlords are going to try to escape paying no matter what? You seem to think that these guys are such outstanding model citizens that are acting for the good of the city. They should already be proactively trying to maintain their property but they are not. Why is that? They are in it to make money at an amount that likely won't show for possibly for another decade. But why should we honor the selfish aims of a single landlord if it affects everyone else in the here and now?

And this helpless loser, "woe is me", there's-nothing-we-can-do attitude is precisely why Detroit is in the shape it's in. The City finds money to demolish houses and buildings. The City finds money to construct a billionaire's hockey palace. But it can't shore up its own neighborhoods? That's crap. Who's going to want to move into Detroit when the city government has a defeatist can't-do attitude? Giving Up doesn't exactly scream optimism and opportunity, does it?

And yes, if Detroit keeps demolishing neighborhoods for prairie, it *will* continue to lose population, as there will be no houses into which people can move. So you see, this philosophy of Demo First, Ask Questions Later is of the self-fulfilling variety. After decades of this practice, has it made Detroit a better place?

You can't just throw money at the neighborhoods and expect them to become filled with people.

At some point, the reality of the situation has to be taken into account. The city can't be built on optimism alone. For instance, there's a lot of unchangeable factors at work. Part of the reason Detroit will continue to lose population is because the older generations will be getting older and fewer younger generations to replace them. Even if Detroit were able to attract young families, people aren't exactly multiplying like in previous decades. As the city loses residents to old age, there's fewer babies growing up into adults to replace them. So, left unchanged, it can be easily inferred that Detroit will continue to lose population until things balance out unless such a substantial amount of young people were coming to the city [[which again, mostly depends on the economy).

There's nothing defeatist about it, that's just the facts of life.

[nain rouge]

If you at all believe in the "broken windows" theory of crime prevention, removing or renovating abandoned, dilapidated properties is vital. Cities that didn't tear apart neighborhoods generally didn't because the neighborhoods still maintained a degree of viability. In Detroit, unfortunately, many neighborhoods are long past that stage.

Honestly, if the demolitions bother you so much, start and by buying and fixing up some houses. You don't have the money, you say? Come on, the homes are dirt cheap! If these neighborhoods are viable, you should stand to make a killing with minimal investment!

If a metro area sprawls at a significantly faster rate than its growing in population, and newer properties are generally viewed as superior, it only stands to reason that the core would eventually rot away. To get mad at Detroit for doing the cleanup work is extremely shortsighted. But it's so convenient to blame Detroit for everything, and its corruption makes it all the more easier.

Why, Detroit didn't decline because of our endless pursuit of sprawl! Ludicrous! It's the gangster's fault. It's Kwame's fault. We did everything we could from Troy!

[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.