Why does Detroit have no row houses or brownstones?!

**Hermod** · December-08-10, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by tallboy66

The boom was in the 50's so wood frame construction was the thing and it helped to make it affordable.

The boom for Detroit was 1915 to 1929 with another boom 1941 to 1954.

By 1954, the city was "built out" and the suburban explosion began north of 8 Mile and west of Telegraph.

DetroitDad · December-08-10, 07:17 AM

Good point Wolverine, I didn't realize. I figured brown stones were different [[?). Although, I do wonder if the first two in my list were parts of row house blocks of some sort, at one point. Today, maybe they are the last ones left?

Originally Posted by wolverine

Traditionally, two walls. Each house could stand on its own if its neighbor was demolished. The type of stuff you see going up nowadays around Detroit either has cmu block fire separation or a heavy stud wall with a ton of gypsum board to meet life safety requirements. In those cases it's a single wall. After all these, buildings are trying to emulate old fashioned towne house architecture.

If there was a gap between two brick walls, it was never much of a big deal back then....at least now-a-days we know more. Walls weren't all that high, and yes at times the result of settling would cause one home to possibly lean against another. I've seen demolitions where they deliberately left the exterior wall of a demolished home remaining to support another.

**Danny** · December-08-10, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Pushtina

We've also got the Luxury Brownstones at Clark Estates to look forward to.

from DetroitFunk:
http://www.detroitfunk.com/?p=3921

Er... maybe not...

No thanks to from the Alan Greenspan's 'How to own a bank by owning a house' sheme along with liar loans, CDO's, synthetic CDO's and mortage companies just giving out too much money to anyone who had little or no income, caused the housing boom to collapse within a blinking of a eye. Now lots of brownfields meant for supercondos and mega mansions aren't going to happen in inner city ghettohoods of Detroit, not in 30 years.

**iheartthed** · December-08-10, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by rjlj

Go back to grammer school first.

Grammar school

**canuck** · December-08-10, 10:02 AM

Detroitdad,

Technically though the houses you classify as brownstones are not brownstones. A brownstone is made of a kind of stone not brick. There arent that many of those around, and graystones maybe a hundred to one in ratio to brownstones.

**Hermod** · December-08-10, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by canuck

Detroitdad,

Technically though the houses you classify as brownstones are not brownstones. A brownstone is made of a kind of stone not brick. There arent that many of those around, and graystones maybe a hundred to one in ratio to brownstones.

I think the original intent of the thread was referring to older row houses either with common walls, separate walls or closely spaced free-standing houses with entrances right off the sidewalk using "brownstone" as a generic term for these houses as opposed to houses on lots with side and front setbacks.

I wonder how many houses in other cities are referred to as "brownstones" that may not actually be made of brown colored sandstone.

**canuck** · December-08-10, 12:17 PM

Hermod,

True enough, I found an article about brownstones on a street in Brooklyn which showed only redbrick row houses. In Montreal, you will usually see one brownstone sandwiched between graystones or brickclad houses. There are also the yellow sandstone houses that are very nice when cleaned-up. The trouble with these types of stones is they deteriorate from the pollution and humidity due to their higher porosity. Some of the details seem to wither faster as if they were made of clay.

**Lloyd** · December-08-10, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by lilpup

brownstones are brick, not cut stone

News to the people of Connecticut where the brown stone is quarried.

**casscorridor** · December-08-10, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Umbound

In my opinion-being that I used to be an Arch/Urban planning major. This is one of the reasons why I want to move east coast for grad school and beyond. As much as I love and appreciate Detroit's style of 'having your own backyard'. I see many styles of those homes of friends of mine who live inner-ring suburbs and i'd rather see brownstones/rowhouses in many [[not all) of Detroits neighborhoods rather then the 1950's built ranch style homes I have seen. Because it still gives me a thought might be in the suburbs, and with all do respect to anybody. It might sound shallow probably to say or think that but I do feel in some of the city's neighborhoods it does not feel urban enough for someone my age.

One of the fundemental problems with Detroit... It is not urban enough. I have heard time and time again the similarities between Detroit and Berlin after WWII or lower Manhattan in the 60s-80s. Sure there are many artists reusing buildings, but the difference is that even though NYC and Berlin were f-ed up, they still had the physical infrastructure in place that cities need to function-- transit and density. Cities just don't work without these ingredients that Detroit is missing. Until we develop density and mass transit in at least one core corridor [[Woodward), all efforts to revive the city will likely fail or do little in the face of declining population, declining tax revenue and deteriorating infrastructure. It is also important to note this is a regional problem not a Detroit only problem. Our region is far too sprawling to be sustainable.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-08-10, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

Traditionally, two walls. Each house could stand on its own if its neighbor was demolished. The type of stuff you see going up nowadays around Detroit either has cmu block fire separation or a heavy stud wall with a ton of gypsum board to meet life safety requirements. In those cases it's a single wall.

Rowhouse construction using two walls between each adjoining residence would be a local idiosyncracy, then. Typical rowhouse construction uses shared masonry walls [[known as "party walls"), with the wood floor framing supported on the walls. The front and rear walls are nonstructural, and are tied back to the floor diaphragms. Typical demolition procedures would remove the floor framing first anyway, so "leaving" a party wall behind is not such a big deal. The party walls are required to be able to remain structurally sound with bracing from only one side.

And usually, in older construction, engineering design was not what it is today, so you have extra factors of safety as opposed to the present where [[especially in single-family homes) everything is designed to the gnats ass to save every penny possible for the builder.

I'm not a fan of the newer claptrap wood-framed walls in "townhouse" construction. Noise from your neighbors [[think of Lawrence in "Office Space") becomes an irritant that will never go away.

**TheKage** · December-08-10, 03:55 PM

Very interesting discussion, especially since I only recently stumbled upon historic rowhouses in Corktown. If you want to check them out, they're just off the Lodge not far from Howard Street. [[You can actually see the back of them from the Lodge.)

I'm no expert on the subject, but I think these were homes for lower- and middle-class workers, probably not what the original poster had in mind for this discussion. It seemed worth pointing out, though. Here's a link to a blog post I wrote:

http://fromthekage.blogspot.com/2010...-detroits.html

**BrushStart** · December-08-10, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by casscorridor

One of the fundemental problems with Detroit... It is not urban enough. I have heard time and time again the similarities between Detroit and Berlin after WWII or lower Manhattan in the 60s-80s. Sure there are many artists reusing buildings, but the difference is that even though NYC and Berlin were f-ed up, they still had the physical infrastructure in place that cities need to function-- transit and density. Cities just don't work without these ingredients that Detroit is missing. Until we develop density and mass transit in at least one core corridor [[Woodward), all efforts to revive the city will likely fail or do little in the face of declining population, declining tax revenue and deteriorating infrastructure. It is also important to note this is a regional problem not a Detroit only problem. Our region is far too sprawling to be sustainable.

It is interesting to ponder whether Detroit would have experienced such intense sprawl if the city had more traditional urban buildings like brownstones and row houses. It's possible that people may have rejected a lot of the sprawl but for the absence of denser housing choices in the city. What I mean is that, had Detroit had more traditional urban housing, people might have been willing to gentrify those areas early on as opposed to building new housing in the suburbs. However, because both Detroit and the suburbs consist mostly of single-family homes, Detroit had to compete directly with the suburbs and did not have the advantage of a diversity of housing options that most other cities do. I think the city would have fared better over the years if it had more urban housing to compete with the lack of such options in the suburbs. You can't underestimate the value of desirable urban housing.

lilpup · December-08-10, 04:06 PM

Nope - not gonna happen. The 1950s post-war trend was Levittowns everywhere. Cities were places to escape from, unless you were already wealthy enough to also have a weekend/country place.

The only ones who wanted to move to the big city were the country bumpkins who thought cities represented sophistication and having 'made it.' Otherwise all this citylove stuff y'all are spewing is a recent development.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-08-10, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by lilpup

Nope - not gonna happen. The 1950s post-war trend was Levittowns everywhere. Cities were places to escape from, unless you were already wealthy enough to also have a weekend/country place.

The only ones who wanted to move to the big city were the country bumpkins who thought cities represented sophistication and having 'made it.' Otherwise all this citylove stuff y'all are spewing is a recent development.

And by "recent", I presume you mean the 5000 years of civilization aside from 1945-1990 in the United States of America.

**jtf1972** · December-08-10, 04:55 PM

Wow. For anybody who thinks that homes that share common walls don't tend to last longer, look at this neighborhood.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en...d2445720d6413d

**stasu1213** · December-08-10, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Rowhouse construction using two walls between each adjoining residence would be a local idiosyncracy, then. Typical rowhouse construction uses shared masonry walls [[known as "party walls"), with the wood floor framing supported on the walls. The front and rear walls are nonstructural, and are tied back to the floor diaphragms. Typical demolition procedures would remove the floor framing first anyway, so "leaving" a party wall behind is not such a big deal. The party walls are required to be able to remain structurally sound with bracing from only one side.

And usually, in older construction, engineering design was not what it is today, so you have extra factors of safety as opposed to the present where [[especially in single-family homes) everything is designed to the gnats ass to save every penny possible for the builder.

I'm not a fan of the newer claptrap wood-framed walls in "townhouse" construction. Noise from your neighbors [[think of Lawrence in "Office Space") becomes an irritant that will never go away.

The row houses were construct like the row businesses that once line the avenues of Detroit. Take the Lafayette Building for example; It was connected to the Arcade Bar. It was razed but the Arcade bar is still intact with it's own wall. Many row retail and restaurants in Detroit were constructed similar to rowhouses in New York and other cities. They had a party wall that seperated each other. The duplexes on Morross, Greenfield, Hayes, Evergreen, and other streets have party walls that divide them.

**wolverine** · December-08-10, 09:53 PM

Just to make it clear, one reason to explain the longevity of a structure's life depends on type of construction. Is it load bearing masonry or is wood with brick exterior? The building you posted is in fact load bearing masonry, and it has some advantages.

If I were to make the argument "brick houses last longer than wood houses." What do you define as a brick house? Just because the exterior may be clad entirely in brick doesn't make it any more durable than a wood frame house. Why? Because the majority of Detroit's brick housing stock is framed entirely in wood....which is actually holding the brick up. If the wood frame fails, so does the brick exterior. That's why you'll see a good number of stripped houses on the east side with the wood framing being left exposed. A brick home of load bearing construction will stand the test of time alot longer. Take a look at the shells of the homes in Brush Park...load bearing masonry....earlier time period.

**stasu1213** · December-08-10, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by wolverine

Just to make it clear, one reason to explain the longevity of a structure's life depends on type of construction. Is it load bearing masonry or is wood with brick exterior? The building you posted is in fact load bearing masonry, and it has some advantages.

If I were to make the argument "brick houses last longer than wood houses." What do you define as a brick house? Just because the exterior may be clad entirely in brick doesn't make it any more durable than a wood frame house. Why? Because the majority of Detroit's brick housing stock is framed entirely in wood....which is actually holding the brick up. If the wood frame fails, so does the brick exterior. That's why you'll see a good number of stripped houses on the east side with the wood framing being left exposed. A brick home of load bearing construction will stand the test of time alot longer. Take a look at the shells of the homes in Brush Park...load bearing masonry....earlier time period.

Would you say that some of these older public schools such as Barbour Middle School, Mackenzie, Cass, are load bearing masonry?

**hybridy** · December-10-10, 09:24 AM

ewald circle off of livernois in either direction has a decent number of rowhouses...most are not attractive, however the nicest is the 2700-2900 block

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...94.72,,0,-2.97

**Shorthook** · December-10-10, 04:32 PM

I don't remember which thread it was in, but someone had mentioned prior that Detroit's boom [[10' - 20's) was rich with banks giving loans specific for single family occupancies. I would imagine it would be easier [[then) to convince someone that they were getting their share of the American dream by being able to purchase their own home on their own land.

In Queens, NYC, most of the borough consists of single family homes, most of the same design! I imagine that then, as the country turned into an Industrial Dynasty, the middle class was born. Living in tenements was not a desirable place to be, and many that were there, [[Think Lower East Side, if you know NY) wanted out.

I guess Detroit had a similar scenario. New York grew in the late 1800's as a banking and business powerhouse; at the same time Detroit became the middle class capitol of the country by being the Industrial Powerhouse of the USof A. Banks willing to loan, and builders fulfilling the want for that piece o' the pie.

**STLgasm** · December-11-10, 10:33 AM

St. Louis is the midwestern capital of rowhouses, even more so than Cincinnati. We have blocks upon blocks of brick rowhouses and townhouses, both attached and detached. Non-brick housing is incredibly rare in the city. I find many similarities between Detroit and St. Louis, but their residential architecture is definitely not one of them.

**Magnatomicflux** · December-11-10, 06:31 PM

Another local example can be found in Walkerville. These row houses are presumably Kahn's....circa 1904. Originally built by Hiram Walker for his employees.....thing was, if you didn't live there, you didn't have a job! In the middle of the block, you'll find two semi-detatched homes for the foreman.

It goes on like this for about 2 blocks, getting less and less detailed as you go. By the time you get to the end of the second block.....people have thrown aluminum siding and crap on them. The 800 block is on the historic register, I beleive.
It's nice that even though they look the same, they really do have their own little details.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...56.91,,0,-1.12

**jtf1972** · December-11-10, 07:56 PM

That's a beautiful block in Windsor!

It's truly amazing the difference in condition on the two sides of the river. What policies were in place in Windsor that helped to keep the city beautiful? I notice that if you head away from the river even as far as the northern border of Detroit, in Canada you are in farmland. There must have been some sort of plan in place to keep the city alive instead of the sprawl that has taken place in the Detroit area.

Augustiner · December-11-10, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by jtf1972

I notice that if you head away from the river even as far as the northern border of Detroit, in Canada you are in farmland. There must have been some sort of plan in place to keep the city alive instead of the sprawl that has taken place in the Detroit area.

You do realize that Detroit has four times as many inhabitants as Windsor, right?

**Magnatomicflux** · December-11-10, 09:15 PM

Whoa......it's weird having Windsor described as beautiful! Thanks!
As far as I know, this area has actually been re-genrafied [[sp?) during the 80's, and what you see is nothing short of the effort put in by the home owners. Walkerville, in general was layed out as a garden city by Hiram Walker, and as pretty as it is now, it pales in comparrison to what it was. I'd post a pic, but don't want to go too far OT lol.

Did you mean ......southern border of Detroit?

I honestly don't think Windsor has ever been forward thinking enough to have some master plan to cull the sprawl. If you ask me.....it was the great depression. I wouldn't doubt Windsor would be at least twice it's current size, had the depression not come about. There are plenty of massive building plans that never came to be because of it, and you would see a very different skyline.
But....I'm glad we're not too big. Easier to manage, small town/big city feel...it's weird. Besides.....we don't need to be big to impress visitors. People who havn't been here coming down the 401 are so impressed from a distance with our skyline, and I continue letting them think it's great, straight down Ouellette. "My God! What's that fabulous building striaght ahead?!?!" "Oh...that's the Penobscott building....yeah it's a beauty" "Can we go there?" "Sure......why not?"
Then of course, you get to about Wyandotte and start to see the glimmer of water and you're forced to let them know they've been ooooing and aweing Detroit.

Hell.....we did it to the Queen! LOL!

But we really have lost all our built heritage. I can't tell you how incredibly jelious I am of the things you have that are in ruin let alone in use.