Henry Ford plans $500 million hospital expansion, redevelopment in Detroit

[Gistok]

Wallins.... wow... just wow.... thanks for giving us a "local" perspective....

I can understand the need for secrecy on the part of Henry Ford Hospital.... it would just invite speculators.... but at the same time their actions did nothing to help the community from the additional crime that came with emptying and at the same time abandoning those houses.

How ironic that they helped contribute to the complaints that out of town patients and their families had about the area around the hospital...

[Huggybear]

It's a complaint, ED. What can I say? I am not on board with the glorious eds and meds strategy of urban development. And, actually, there have been some previous threads about the loss of buildings in the neighborhood and the speculation that some big expansion was in the offing, and those discussions add a cautionary note, that these "big plans" come at some measurable cost.

Right. You're on board with preserving a street grid over all else. Do the city taxes that you pay [[if you pay any) cover even your consumption of services in the one block where you live? And that small-block street grid pattern - in the face of massive depopulation - has been financially sinking the city for decades. There's a water, electrical, and sewer connection for every house - and the ultra-low density of things stretches limited police resources over thousands of miles of streets. And it's not as if there is a shortage of gridded streets around town. In fact, aside from a couple of relatively small areas, it's all gridded.

And you don't like "eds and meds?" Universities and hospitals represent some of the highest paying and most desirable jobs that exist anywhere. I suppose that it would be better to have some minimum wage positions at party stores, chain fast-food places, party stores, and the Ramp Room? "Eds and meds" haven't worked for Ann Arbor, Boston, and Philadelphia, right?

$500 million is an absolutely massive investment in a part of town that has not seen new construction on that scale since the 1920s. Things will get displaced, but as they say, Paris is well worth a mass.

[Detroitnerd]

Right. You're on board with preserving a street grid over all else.

Hold up, Huggybear. I don't think I've said that, so that's an unfair mischaracterization of my position. My position is not to preserve the original street grid over all else.

Actually, my point of view is complicated enough to merit a discussion of its own. Basically, the street grid we have inherited is, for the lack of a better word, more "organic" than what you find people building new these days. Oh, sure, the street layout can be a little crazy sometimes, as it was built up by thousands of individual decisions, and platted at a time when traffic was slow and people walked almost everywhere. [[Certainly, the layout has been tweaked over the years, and I approve of the addition of through-streets and thoroughfares; a little rubbish-clearing is always necessary.) The streets were narrower, the lots were smaller, and new construction was often designed to be built up almost to the sidewalk.

In other words, these are the sorts of environments that provide "good bones" for density. You can go to Philadelphia or New York or other places with plenty of density and you'll find that these lot sizes are often more than suitable for brownstones, and the narrow streets are better than any recent "traffic calming" designs. People who live in dense areas consume fewer resources, which is a plus, and, given recent trends in fuel prices and our local economics, we should be placing a premium on right now.

So that explains a different point of view about "sweeping away the inefficient street design of the 19th and early 20th centuries" and replacing them with broad avenues and, presumably, huge developments. This point of view sees the old platting as an asset to be exploited, not a nuisance standing in the way of superblock-style deals.

Do the city taxes that you pay [[if you pay any) cover even your consumption of services in the one block where you live?

Is this supposed to be a personal dig at me? Are you eager to "blame" people who live in depopulated areas for daring to consume more resources than they deserve? If so, what must you think about people who live on large lots in the exurbs!

Seriously, I live on a block that has about 28 homes on it, with two of them burned-out. I imagine we more than pay our way for the services we get, which include garbage pickup [[which we pay for again in fees) and rental inspections [[which we pay for again in fees). As for snowplowing and street salting, there is none. I think I saw a police car once.

And that small-block street grid pattern - in the face of massive depopulation - has been financially sinking the city for decades. There's a water, electrical, and sewer connection for every house - and the ultra-low density of things stretches limited police resources over thousands of miles of streets. And it's not as if there is a shortage of gridded streets around town. In fact, aside from a couple of relatively small areas, it's all gridded.

I wonder if this way of looking at things, as individual owners being responsible for "holding back" the city by living in the city is a responsible way of looking at things. The services are abysmal already in a populated area. Instead of promises to improve services, now we're all supposed to blame our fellow citizens for not abandoning the city so we can enjoy the services they're not letting us enjoy? What an odd way to look at it all!

Yes, large areas of the city are low-density. But, as I said, they have "good bones" for future redevelopment. To propose turning them into "no-density zones" where the street grids will be erased and rebuilt into industrial parks or trucking lanes is something you can't undo.

Yes, much of Detroit is grids, but not all of them are without interest. Smaller streets, smaller blocks, alleyways and smaller lot sizes are the sorts of plats you can't really legally implement anymore. Why the hurry to wipe it away?

And you don't like "eds and meds?" Universities and hospitals represent some of the highest paying and most desirable jobs that exist anywhere. I suppose that it would be better to have some minimum wage positions at party stores, chain fast-food places, party stores, and the Ramp Room? "Eds and meds" haven't worked for Ann Arbor, Boston, and Philadelphia, right?

Hey, don't diss those burgers at the Ramp Room. They were awesome!

Seriously, though, don't you think Ann Arbor, Boston and Philly have slightly different histories than Detroit? Hey, those cities have been able to develop perennial economies based on massive infusions of money, and host universities that sit on massive endowments. Good for them. But they haven't had the level of disinvestment that Detroit has. They have pretty diverse local economies too. Philly and Boston have pretty good relationships with their suburbs, and that whole region has a large financial sector.

But what about trying to take disinvested, inner-city areas and just filling them with hospitals and universities? High-paying jobs are great, but do you get enough tax revenues? Development is desirable, but does it produce a built environment that can be put to new purposes? Bringing money to town is good, but how do you ensure that the locals share in the prosperity? Shiny new buildings are great, but how do you make the people in them good neighbors? What will happen to the Detroit Medical Center when there is no longer a purpose for it? Will we just have rearranged all the streets so it can sit there empty? And, for every tax dollar not collected, this represents a subsidy from the people who do pay taxes. So, yes, I wonder at what cost this "eds and meds" strategy is pursued.

$500 million is an absolutely massive investment in a part of town that has not seen new construction on that scale since the 1920s. Things will get displaced, but as they say, Paris is well worth a mass.

Actually, that the neighborhood hasn't seen any new development since the 1920s is one of the reasons why that original street grid still exists. As you say, we have lots of areas in Detroit with solid, north-south-east-west grids. Why not build there?

Anyway, Huggybear, don't take it from me. There are plenty of resources online that explain why "good bones" are desirable, and help explain too some of the problems with pinning urban strategies on massive, big-ticket nonprofits. Why not do some reading? Sounds like it could be a good discussion.

[Huggybear]

But what about trying to take disinvested, inner-city areas and just filling them with hospitals and universities? High-paying jobs are great, but do you get enough tax revenues?

I think you missed the point about residential property not paying its own way when you got caught up thinking the comment was directed to you. Residential property is subsidized by commercial - and when the commercial activity ceases, the residential infrastructure becomes unmanageably expensive. This is why so many bedroom communities [[and Detroit, which is arguably one) are having fiscal crises.

The solution to this problem lies in part in the increase in commuter tax revenue. University and hospital system employees do pay city income taxes, and the workday-only populations are fairly concentrated. So that's a population that takes relatively little from the system and returns net revenue. It doesn't matter that the employer pays little or no tax, particularly where universities and hospitals provide many of their own services [[witness the Wayne State Police, who actually provide services that the DPD is supposed to be handling). And if it drives housing demand in the area, great.

The idea that new buildings "might" be empty in 40-50 years [[that hospital has been there a lot longer than that already) is not a reason to forgo an expensive [[and funded) redevelopment project. And if it fails, putting a street grid back into a piece of empty property is actually pretty easy. Finding anyone who is going to put $500 million into that area in the conceivable future is not.

[Detroitnerd]

I think you missed the point about residential property not paying its own way when you got caught up thinking the comment was directed to you.

Ah, yes. Whoa, how did I get "caught up in thinking the comment was directed at" me? Oh, wait: Because it was directed at me: You asked, "Do the city taxes that you pay [[if you pay any) cover even your consumption of services in the one block where you live?"

Just a simple, general question, yes? Not really. It's pretty clearly directed at me, even down to the question of whether I pay city taxes. Sigh. OK, let's ignore that inaccuracy.

Residential property is subsidized by commercial - and when the commercial activity ceases, the residential infrastructure becomes unmanageably expensive. This is why so many bedroom communities [[and Detroit, which is arguably one) are having fiscal crises.

In that case, you would think that the city of Detroit would stop saddling mom-and-pop businesses with expensive regulations, red tape and would lower the taxes a bit. But they won't, and part of the problem is that the mentality in Detroit seems to be that we MUST have huge, big-ticket developments, whether they pay taxes or not. And courting huge nonprofits that pay no direct taxes represents a subsidy from the people who DO pay taxes. So, it's a little more complicated than residential infrastructure becoming unmanageably expensive, because the tax dollars that ARE supposed to support our community instead go to subsidizing another big-ticket project -- when you take everything in in its totality. And, looking at it like that, I question the wisdom of it.

The solution to this problem lies in part in the increase in commuter tax revenue. University and hospital system employees do pay city income taxes, and the workday-only populations are fairly concentrated. So that's a population that takes relatively little from the system and returns net revenue. It doesn't matter that the employer pays little or no tax, particularly where universities and hospitals provide many of their own services [[witness the Wayne State Police, who actually provide services that the DPD is supposed to be handling). And if it drives housing demand in the area, great.

Perhaps in theory, but that's assuming that the nonprofits are good neighbors, adding jobs to the community, working with local residents on a shared vision. As some of the posts on this thread point out, these nonprofits can be horrible neighbors, even to the point of hoping surrounding neighbors fail so their houses can be bulldozed for more parking. Where is the institutional conscience? Are we just going to let businesses "create jobs" for people who don't live here? How do we get them to build campuses that are integrated with our neighborhoods? How do we raise housing values without evicting the people who already live there?

Yes, it'll make some money for the city. It's more complicated than playing Sim City is all I'm saying. Who cares if the commuter income tax gives us a bump on the tax rolls when there's no accountability? When we essentially ask all our taxpayers to subsidize a business that may or may not care about the future of its neighborhood?

The idea that new buildings "might" be empty in 40-50 years [[that hospital has been there a lot longer than that already) is not a reason to forgo an expensive [[and funded) redevelopment project. And if it fails, putting a street grid back into a piece of empty property is actually pretty easy. Finding anyone who is going to put $500 million into that area in the conceivable future is not.

Well, as a person who lives near an abandoned hospital, I question the value of building things that cannot be easily repurposed. Why are we willing to sacrifice anything -- taxes, street grids, neighborhoods, zoning, police and fire resources -- for these large firms and will do squat for those people who dare to live in a low-density area? In Philly or Boston, perhaps they have a diverse tax base that can handle such an investment. I am not convinced that this is right for Detroit.

But I know: "Eds and meds" is such a fashionable theory. Few people question it. Many of us seem willing to engage in the same wishful thinking we scold others for. [[The idea, for instance, that when the whole project goes belly-up, we'll simply remove the new buildings down to their foundations, put the same old streets in, put in new electric vaults and sewers, replat those small lots, and build a row or four of brownstones.)

Anyway, Huggybear, it doesn't seem we're going to agree on this. The kind of development you're talking about puts encouraging numbers on paper, but I think it is an ultimate negative for that neighborhood. To my way of thinking, this is just more of the main reason a lot of older folks say they moved OUT of the city: Because the city's leaders only care about big-ticket developments, and do NOT care about residents, mom-and-pop businesses, neighborhoods, taxpayers or families. And that's a shame.

[bailey]

Anyway, Huggybear, it doesn't seem we're going to agree on this. The kind of development you're talking about puts encouraging numbers on paper, but I think it is an ultimate negative for that neighborhood. To my way of thinking, this is just more of the main reason a lot of older folks say they moved OUT of the city: Because the city's leaders only care about big-ticket developments, and do NOT care about residents, mom-and-pop businesses, neighborhoods, taxpayers or families. And that's a shame.

Isn't it a constant lament on this board that there are no big ticket developments to spur the economic growth of the city and thus positively affect the residents, mom and pops, and neighborhoods that would surround it?

I understand that we don't need to replicate Big beaver on W. Grand, but c'mon, aren't you being a tad over dramatic? You have a major player saying they will drop half a BILLION dollars into a facility in a city starving for any sort of investment at all. And on top of that investment, they are hoping to spur another 500 million in development. I think Detroit has plenty of street grid preserved [[petrified..mummified?) all over the city. It can spare a little here.

Yes, it'll make some money for the city. It's more complicated than playing Sim City is all I'm saying. Who cares if the commuter income tax gives us a bump on the tax rolls when there's no accountability? When we essentially ask all our taxpayers to subsidize a business that may or may not care about the future of its neighborhood?

I would agree with you if this were a discussion about Quicken Loans and Dan's "we're moving real soon" subsidy rope-a-dope, however, it's not like HFH is some fly by night enterprise. It's roots run pretty deep in Detroit.

[Detroitnerd]

Isn't it a constant lament on this board that there are no big ticket developments to spur the economic growth of the city and thus positively affect the residents, mom and pops, and neighborhoods that would surround it?

I can't speak for other posters, but I'm more skeptical of big-ticket development than most.

I understand that we don't need to replicate Big beaver on W. Grand, but c'mon, aren't you being a tad over dramatic? You have a major player saying they will drop half a BILLION dollars into a facility in a city starving for any sort of investment at all. And on top of that investment, they are hoping to spur another 500 million in development. I think Detroit has plenty of street grid preserved [[petrified..mummified?) all over the city. It can spare a little here.

Dangle money in front of people and their upper reasoning functions tend to shut down. The reason they're willing to invest that much money isn't because they love Detroit. The reason is that they believe they'll make that money back. And, as far as I know, there have been no deals with the neighbors to ensure their money isn't made at their expense. There doesn't seem to have been much in the way of public review. I have no seen any evidence that the hospital will be held to any urban design standards. Nope, it's just the same old, ink-it-quick-and-let-them-do-whatever-they-want mentality.

Businesspeople are shrewd. When businesspeople deal with other businesspeople, they're always looking at how the other guy is going to soak him on a deal, even when it sounds great. Why not bring the same scrutiny to bear on this deal? Even if it sounds good, I think we may be able to do better.

[Danny]

Well, it least there will not be any more fancy hospitals being built in the suburbs.

[Alex Martin]

Just link this up with what's going on by the Masonic Temple and it's clear that some entity[[ies) are quietly doing whatever they want. Even though the newspaper reported that someone said the DMC deal was illegal, I doubt they'll put it on hold. Detroit is experiencing something but regular folks will have to wait to read about it in the paper.



Alex

[Hermod]

That's encouraging. Thanks, Gsgeorge.

On the other hand, a pedestrian walkway totally says "superblock" to me.

Yet you have orgasms looking at pictures of the walkway street bridge that once connected Crowley's two halves or that connected Cass Tech and Commerce..

[Detroitnerd]

Yet you have orgasms looking at pictures of the walkway street bridge that once connected Crowley's two halves or that connected Cass Tech and Commerce..

Haha. What? Where have I ever praised pedestrian tubeways? That is nonsense, Hermod.

[Rocko]

I'm not sure about any of you, but I had no idea the scope and footprint of the two expansion projects Henry Ford is envisioning were so large:

From Model D:

Henry Ford Health System has released preliminary plans to invest $500 million to improve its West Grand Boulevard campus and create a 300-acre residential, retail and business development south of the hospital. The overall development strategy includes two plans and two sets of boundaries.

The first, which William Schramm, Henry Ford's vice president of business development, characterizes as "mission-related," could include research and ambulatory care divisions, a surgery center and educational facilities, in what might be termed a south campus of the hospital. Boundaries are W. Grand Blvd., Holden, the Lodge Freeway and Sterling. Properties are being acquired in this targeted area.

The second, which is larger, more ambitious and stretches outside of Henry Ford's core business of health care, is called Community Health Park, and would be bounded by W. Grand Blvd., 14th St., the Lodge Freeway, and I-94. The area would see residential, commercial and retail development, particularly in the areas of "health care-related support services," says Schramm. As for existing interests in the area, which include Recycle Here!, Caraco Pharmaceutical and Research Lofts, Schramm says, "We're not looking to displace...we will continue to work with them."

Henry Ford still needs board approval of the plan and to raise the funds -- both $500 million internally as well as an additional $500 million from outside developers.

Source: William Schramm, HFHS
Writer: Kelli B. Kavanaugh

http://modeldmedia.com/devnews/hfhs041310.aspx

Those projects, especially the second one, capture quite a sizeable land area in that part of the city, which currently [[and historically) has served many types of development: residential, commercial, light and heavy industrial. All well and nice for the Hospital to say they want to work with current occupants...let's hope they actually live up to their word and make accomodations for those currently living and working there and incorporating them into the larger plan. It would also be nice if they focused in with a green/sustainable outlook, surveying the currently existing building stock and trying to rehabilitate as many existing structures as they can which fit into their plan. The last thing we need is another suburban style subdivision combined with a suburban business park dropped within the confines of the city, obliterating everything currently there and with only a few entrances and exits, effectively blocking it off from everything else to the same extend that the berms of the RenCen did...

[Detroitnerd]

I'm not sure about any of you, but I had no idea the scope and footprint of the two expansion projects Henry Ford is envisioning were so large:

From Model D:

"The second, which is larger, more ambitious and stretches outside of Henry Ford's core business of health care, is called Community Health Park, and would be bounded by W. Grand Blvd., 14th St., the Lodge Freeway, and I-94. The area would see residential, commercial and retail development, particularly in the areas of "health care-related support services," says Schramm."

Those projects, especially the second one, capture quite a sizeable land area in that part of the city, which currently [[and historically) has served many types of development: residential, commercial, light and heavy industrial. All well and nice for the Hospital to say they want to work with current occupants...let's hope they actually live up to their word and make accomodations for those currently living and working there and incorporating them into the larger plan. It would also be nice if they focused in with a green/sustainable outlook, surveying the currently existing building stock and trying to rehabilitate as many existing structures as they can which fit into their plan. The last thing we need is another suburban style subdivision combined with a suburban business park dropped within the confines of the city, obliterating everything currently there and with only a few entrances and exits, effectively blocking it off from everything else to the same extend that the berms of the RenCen did...

That southern portion is almost one half of a square mile. With spaces that large, you can imagine that much of the land will be devoted to parking lots.

[Huggybear]

Take a look at that site via Google satellite.

Phase I - as it currently is defined - has [[by my rough count)

• 42 existing houses sitting on about 60 lots [[and that is making the big assumption that everything with a peaked roof is habitable residential structure);
• A remaining surface area completely dominated by parking lots and industrial uses; and
• No traditional street grid to speak of, just the clumsy splicing of the "diagonal" streets south of West Grand to the NSEW ones above. These are very long blocks with no side streets.

From this, I would surmise that even if the hospital maliciously destroyed all of the remaining residential property in the footprint of the first phase, it would not be the atrocity that you are claiming. You would not lose much of housing stock [[or much of functional neighborhood, especially along the east side of Trumbull). You would not get additional parking. And you would not damage the sacrosanct "street grid." But malicious wiping-out is the worst-case scenario and one that you seem to have assumed right from the start. The fact that many of the Trumbull and Sterling houses are still there might be indicative of something. But unless someone has seen the plan, it's a little early to be freaking out.

So go to Phase II. That's bigger on the surface, but in addition to some recent demos [[visible by the tracks), it has a fantastic amount of old-growth vacant lots. It's hard to say what entity demolished those houses - based on the distance from the hospital, it might well have been the city. That area has been sinking for quite some time, and as recently as a few years ago, there were a ton of burned-out houses there.

It's probably pointless to herniate over Phase II - since it would be surprising if the redevelopment project got past the first phase. But by the time HFHS got around to it, the Phase II area probably already would have made it onto a list of neighborhoods to be "rightsized." Many of those blocks in Phase II have one house on them. Some blocks are literally half empty.

The "historic" structures that are left in any of this area are not unique in Detroit, nor are there enough of them left that integrating them into a development should be an overarching priority. However it happened, the character of this corner of New Center is long-gone - and it's time to redevelop in a way that makes economic sense.

That southern portion is almost one half of a square mile. With spaces that large, you can imagine that much of the land will be devoted to parking lots.

[innercitydoc]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ion-New-Center

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I'm glad that HFH is growing south towards Wayne State. Hopefully this will spur even more development in between the two institutions. It's also nice to see that they are deconstructing properties and that some of the materials will be re-used.

[mwilbert]

And, on the "eds and meds" strategy, am I the only person who thinks it's kind of crazy to devote intense public effort to fostering the expansion of non-profits? It seems a modest question to ask. If indeed the city will have to put additional effort into policing a larger area or routing more traffic, if the fire department has to devote additional resourced to protecting more development, where does this additional money come from? Know what I mean?

I see your point but I don't agree with it. As far as I can see, people generally agree that Midtown is safer than most of the rest of the city at least partially because the WSU police help keep it that way. I'm reasonably sure HFH police currently patrol their own area. New buildings require a tiny fraction of the fire protection resources of old [[and abandoned) ones; it is hard to imagine this will be a significant drain on the fire department.

I think your point about mega-developments being hard to reuse is valid, but it seems to me as if hospital spaces are inherently difficult to reuse.

[corktownyuppie]

I see your point but I don't agree with it. As far as I can see, people generally agree that Midtown is safer than most of the rest of the city at least partially because the WSU police help keep it that way. I'm reasonably sure HFH police currently patrol their own area. New buildings require a tiny fraction of the fire protection resources of old [[and abandoned) ones; it is hard to imagine this will be a significant drain on the fire department.

I think your point about mega-developments being hard to reuse is valid, but it seems to me as if hospital spaces are inherently difficult to reuse.

This is the upside of density. Developing 10 blighted homes on Canfield will require no increase in police and fire services. In fact, you could argue that re-development in this location will actually reduce demand for city services as occupied homes in a stable neighborhood are less likely to attract crime.

This phenomenon is a real-life illustration of the economic conundrum Detroit faces. Those people in stable neighborhoods will decrease their need for city services by attracting new residents. These new residents will also increase the tax revenue coming into the city. More money to work with, less problems to spend the money on. This is the upward spiral.

In comparison, look at the problem you deal with in 48205. For every abandoned home, it attracts crime and criminals. This simultaneously increases the need for police and fire while losing tax revenue [[assuming they were paying). The blighted neighborhood only encourages those who can leave to move away, creating more blight, attracting more crime, requiring more city services, and decreasing tax revenue.

The only people who are left are those who are either causing the problems or are too poor to leave. Both of these are the people who require the most support -- financial or otherwise -- from the city.

What's the solution? You need to get everyone to move out of those declining neighborhoods into areas of stability and density. Is that fair? Is that right? Is that ideal? Is that exciting and inspiring? Should we treat those people with compassion for their suffering? Should we avoid being heavy handed with the people who have been most damaged by this process?

All of those are important questions. But they're secondary to the primary question, which is, how do we stop the bleeding?

[DetroitPlanner]

This is the upside of density. Developing 10 blighted homes on Canfield will require no increase in police and fire services. In fact, you could argue that re-development in this location will actually reduce demand for city services as occupied homes in a stable neighborhood are less likely to attract crime.

What??? Less city services? I don't think so. Cities provide for street maintenance, water, sewer, garbage pick-up, lighting, fire, and recreation. The need for services increase when homes are filled.

[corktownyuppie]

What??? Less city services? I don't think so. Cities provide for street maintenance, water, sewer, garbage pick-up, lighting, fire, and recreation. The need for services increase when homes are filled.

Well, yes, maybe I should've said a "net reduction" in city services. Lighting 20 city blocks with 120 occupied homes is more expensive than consolidating all of them down to 6 city blocks and only having to light those 6.

Plus, I'd argue that any increase in lighting, garbage, street maintenance cost gained by densification results in equal or higher savings in arson, crime, and other various police and fire costs.

[cramerro]

What??? Less city services? I don't think so. Cities provide for street maintenance, water, sewer, garbage pick-up, lighting, fire, and recreation. The need for services increase when homes are filled.

I think the way it was said was mis-leading, but the idea is correct. You have 10 new houses, which is 10 [[likely) money-earning families staying in or coming into the city, paying income tax. The property values are increasing instead of decreasing, and they are likely to pay them since they aren't an absentee blight owner. The city won't have to spend money mowing the lots, monitoring the blighted structure, putting out fires in abandoned buildings there.

As far as your list of things they provide, they maintain the street anyway, have to maintain the water and sewer pipes [[and now have paying customers to help fund thier maintenance), already send a garbage truck by, already [[are supposed to) light the street, and won't have to build any new city parks.

The net benefit of this is positive, WAY positive. That is the tricky part of the Detroit Works idea. Unless you literally shut down blocks [[plural) of area and cut off the pipes and block of the streets and disconnect utilities, all shrinking the city does is drive down property values and revenues. Physically, is built to house 2Million... like an apartment building with 200 rooms that only rents 60... still have to maintain parking for 200, lights on every floor, garbage service. Not a new planning concept that new development in developed areas is a net win for everyone.

[DetroitPlanner]

It is economically beneficial on a per unit basis to have things clustered. Oddly of the things I forgot to mention under services are transit and schools. Ironic in that I spend a lot of time playing devils advocate on both of these subjects.

In general I do agree that clustering makes sense in order to provide services, but lets not kid ourselves and think that actual costs will go down. Per unit costs will, but providing services ain't cheap. Collectively, 10 houses will use a lot of water and make a lot of garbage.

[corktownyuppie]

It is economically beneficial on a per unit basis to have things clustered. Oddly of the things I forgot to mention under services are transit and schools. Ironic in that I spend a lot of time playing devils advocate on both of these subjects.

In general I do agree that clustering makes sense in order to provide services, but lets not kid ourselves and think that actual costs will go down. Per unit costs will, but providing services ain't cheap. Collectively, 10 houses will use a lot of water and make a lot of garbage.

Not to get all accounting-oriented on you here, but here's a question. Those 10 houses that use the water and make a lot of garbage are an expense, for sure. But I've always thought that they were an expense to the 10 homeowners, not to the city. In fact, with water, at least, doesn't the amount collected in water bills actually exceed the cost of delivering that water?

Generally, when I talk about lowering costs for the city, I specifically mean the net operating expense for the city. Sure, if I use 10 times as much water, then that will increase the operate expense for the city. But when you factor in that I'm paying 10x as much for the privilege of doing so, then it shouldn't be a problem.

[DetroitPlanner]

Unfortunately not all costs are based upon a user fee. If it was fairly priced then my garbage costs would be a tiny fraction of the house across the street that brings out two rollers full every week while I bring mine out once per month.

It makes all the sense in the world to rehab these homes on Canfield [[are these fictictious homes?) in that no new pipes would need to be run for sewer and water, but each home put on the system will eventually lead to the need to expand the system one day. It is a no brainer when compared to developing with new pipes. Not all of those costs appear in the water bill, but most do.

[Hypestyles]

I wonder will any of the other regional hospitals will try and have a presence in urban Detroit? Beaumont, Oakwood, Botsford, Crittendon, etc.