Observations of Detroit after a visit

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't understand how you can say abandonment is not a problem. Having lived in a neighborhood that saw many homes go abandoned had a huge influence on my living conditions. While there were certainly other factors that contributed to my move, not wanting to live next to vacant property certainly was one of them. I shouldn't have to worry about my house catching on fire or some drug deal gone bad because no one is taking care of the house next to me.

Abandonment, while troubling, is not the *cause*, but the result.

My concern is this: The story of the past decade or so is young, educated people moving into inner cities and renovating old houses and properties. If Detroit destroys all those existing houses and buildings, then there is nothing left to renovate, yes? I mean, who is going to move into a neighborhood that has been completely destroyed [[and with public dollars, no less). Does anyone think Brooklyn [[to use one example) would have seen an influx of residents if all the rowhouses and apartment buildings had been bulldozed in favor of open prairie?

I've seen cities where houses have sat abandoned for decades. If that leads to crime [[as some suggest), then that's a policing problem, not an abandoned house problem. It's ironic, though, that the City of Detroit will exercise completely lackluster building code enforcement, then let derelict property owners off the hook by paying for a demolition. I didn't realize Detroit was so flush with cash!

Funny enough, though, even though many of these houses have been vacant and falling apart for years, if not decades, the Detroit Land Bank gives new owners a whopping six months to bring a house up to Code. That's a completely unreasonable time frame for the vast majority of would-be homeowners.

Once again, though, Detroit has to pretend that it's the only city to have ever fallen on hard times.

[animatedmartian]

Abandonment, while troubling, is not the *cause*, but the result.

My concern is this: The story of the past decade or so is young, educated people moving into inner cities and renovating old houses and properties. If Detroit destroys all those existing houses and buildings, then there is nothing left to renovate, yes? I mean, who is going to move into a neighborhood that has been completely destroyed [[and with public dollars, no less). Does anyone think Brooklyn [[to use one example) would have seen an influx of residents if all the rowhouses and apartment buildings had been bulldozed in favor of open prairie?

Brooklyn [[or rather a good portion of NYC in general) is actually on the other end of the spectrum where too much of it is preserved leaving very little room for new housing/development driving up prices. Also, I'm pretty sure many parts of Brooklyn have been razed and rebuilt with public housing developments. The area where the youngins are moving to is a relatively small area.

I've seen cities where houses have sat abandoned for decades. If that leads to crime [[as some suggest), then that's a policing problem, not an abandoned house problem. It's ironic, though, that the City of Detroit will exercise completely lackluster building code enforcement, then let derelict property owners off the hook by paying for a demolition. I didn't realize Detroit was so flush with cash!

Funny enough, though, even though many of these houses have been vacant and falling apart for years, if not decades, the Detroit Land Bank gives new owners a whopping six months to bring a house up to Code. That's a completely unreasonable time frame for the vast majority of would-be homeowners.

Once again, though, Detroit has to pretend that it's the only city to have ever fallen on hard times.

It seems to me people pretend that Detroit is the only city to ever demolish historical buildings.

[ghettopalmetto]

Brooklyn [[or rather a good portion of NYC in general) is actually on the other end of the spectrum where too much of it is preserved leaving very little room for new housing/development driving up prices.

Uh, what? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Housing prices in Brooklyn [[as one example) are high because *people want to live there*. They want to live there, in part, because it's not a freaking open prairie.

I don't think Detroit has to worry about housing prices being too high in the future. And you seem to imply that new construction is absolutely necessary, when in fact, it is not. The majority of single-family homes in Philadelphia, for example, were constructed in the 1930s or earlier. But I suppose Philly would have been better off demolishing half the city at great public expense, correct?

The sad thing is, Detroit will spend hundreds of millions of dollars literally destroying its property value, while the State of Michigan will find money to build more freeways and more schools out in the orchards to continue the outward sprawl that has emptied out Detroit over the decades. You're paying twice to get less. What a bargain.

[animatedmartian]

Uh, what? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Housing prices in Brooklyn [[as one example) are high because *people want to live there*. They want to live there, in part, because it's not a freaking open prairie.

I don't think Detroit has to worry about housing prices being too high in the future. And you seem to imply that new construction is absolutely necessary, when in fact, it is not. The majority of single-family homes in Philadelphia, for example, were constructed in the 1930s or earlier. But I suppose Philly would have been better off demolishing half the city at great public expense, correct?

If you read what I said, then you'd know I wasn't implying that.

The sad thing is, Detroit will spend hundreds of millions of dollars literally destroying its property value, while the State of Michigan will find money to build more freeways and more schools out in the orchards to continue the outward sprawl that has emptied out Detroit over the decades. You're paying twice to get less. What a bargain.

It's kind of hard to have property value when it's already as low as it can possibly be.

[Bham1982]

Brooklyn [[or rather a good portion of NYC in general) is actually on the other end of the spectrum where too much of it is preserved leaving very little room for new housing/development driving up prices. Also, I'm pretty sure many parts of Brooklyn have been razed and rebuilt with public housing developments. The area where the youngins are moving to is a relatively small area.

Oh, boy. Someone needs to visit Brooklyn.

The fact is that Brooklyn has a massive amount of intact building stock, and that is a major reason for its resurgence.

And intact building stock does not "leave very little room for new housing/development". That makes no sense. Brooklyn has massive construction right now.

Hong Kong and Manhattan are crazy dense, with almost no vacant lots, yet have tons of housing construction. Detroit and Cleveland are absurdly empty, with tens of thousands of vacant lots, yet almost no housing construction.

What am I missing here? Why would an intact housing stock discourage new development? And why would a gap-toothed, denuded housing stock encourage new development?

[ghettopalmetto]

Hong Kong and Manhattan are crazy dense, with almost no vacant lots, yet have tons of housing construction. Detroit and Cleveland are absurdly empty, with tens of thousands of vacant lots, yet almost no housing construction.

Easy, killer. Cleveland has a buttload of residential construction at the moment. Interestingly, almost all of it is happening in neighborhoods that haven't been bulldozed to smithereens.

[animatedmartian]

Oh, boy. Someone needs to visit Brooklyn.

The fact is that Brooklyn has a massive amount of intact building stock, and that is a major reason for its resurgence.

And intact building stock does not "leave very little room for new housing/development". That makes no sense. Brooklyn has massive construction right now.

Hong Kong and Manhattan are crazy dense, with almost no vacant lots, yet have tons of housing construction. Detroit and Cleveland are absurdly empty, with tens of thousands of vacant lots, yet almost no housing construction.

What am I missing here? Why would an intact housing stock discourage new development? And why would a gap-toothed, denuded housing stock encourage new development?

Well, you can't build a new house on top of an old one, can you? What do you think use to occupy all that new development? Older development that was demolished to make way for new development. Whether it was a prairie or not doesn't make a difference.

[Bham1982]

Well, you can't build a new house on top of an old one, can you?

Of course you can. You demolish and rebuild.

Almost nothing you see in Manhattan or Hong Kong is the original structure. Usually you're on the 3rd, 4th or 5th iteration at this point. Probably someplace really old, like a Rome, is on Version 8 or something.

There are many supertalls going up in Midtown Manhattan right now, and I don't think even one is being built on vacant land or other "soft site" [[parking garage, taxpayer buildings, etc.) They're assemblages, where a developer patiently buys existing buildings and gathers development rights over time. Then he slowly clears the buildings of tenants, demolishes, and builds the new structure.

There's a 40-50 floor hotel directly on Central Park South, dating from the 70's, I think. The new owners bought it strictly for the site, as a development play. They plan to demolish and rebuild taller and better. This is "normal" behavior when property values are high, and can be seen on a much smaller scale in our region, with the teardowns you see everywhere in Birmingham and increasingly in Royal Oak.

[animatedmartian]

Of course you can. You demolish and rebuild.

Almost nothing you see in Manhattan or Hong Kong is the original structure. Usually you're on the 3rd, 4th or 5th iteration at this point. Probably someplace really old, like a Rome, is on Version 8 or something.

There are many supertalls going up in Midtown Manhattan right now, and I don't think even one is being built on vacant land or other "soft site" [[parking garage, taxpayer buildings, etc.) They're assemblages, where a developer patiently buys existing buildings and gathers development rights over time. Then he slowly clears the buildings of tenants, demolishes, and builds the new structure.

Right, so how is that different than if Detroit demolishes its buildings? It's not a guarantee that it will be redeveloped in any certain time frame, but I'm very sure NYC has lost historical buildings that otherwise would have been unique and well liked by the community of current residents. However, I don't think the loss of such buildings has in anyway contributed to a decline or given less appeal to NYC.

[Bham1982]

Right, so how is that different than if Detroit demolishes its buildings? It's not a guarantee that it will be redeveloped in any certain time frame, but I'm very sure NYC has lost historical buildings that otherwise would have been unique and well liked by the community of current residents. However, I don't think the loss of such buildings has in anyway contributed to a decline or given less appeal to NYC.

I don't know what you're arguing, as there is no demolition effort whatsoever in NYC. No one demos a building without something of value replacing it.

I never said that no building should ever be demolished. I said that Detroit's policy of widespread demolition is not a solution to really anything. It's just demolishing stuff because we don't know what else to do.

And I have no problem with demolition; I have a problem with demolition without a replacement. If people were demoing left and right in Detroit to put up new homes, I would be thrilled. But demoing just to create a ghetto countryside isn't really helping things.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, you can't build a new house on top of an old one, can you? What do you think use to occupy all that new development? Older development that was demolished to make way for new development. Whether it was a prairie or not doesn't make a difference.

I think you're confusing cause-and-effect. New development doesn't happen in New York City because something old was bulldozed. In fact, things are only bulldozed in order to facilitate new development. I think you make the [[horribly false) assumption, though, that new development is even necessary. Many of the greatest neighborhoods in the nation consist of old houses that had been rescued from a decrepit state of repair.

And whether something is a prairie or not *does* make a difference. People want to live in a neighborhood--somewhere with eyes on the street, and where they can walk to the neighborhood retail strip, public transit, etc. In other words: safety and convenience. If people want to live in a rural area, they can live Up North and not have to pay City of Detroit taxes.

[animatedmartian]

I think you're confusing cause-and-effect. New development doesn't happen in New York City because something old was bulldozed. In fact, things are only bulldozed in order to facilitate new development. I think you make the [[horribly false) assumption, though, that new development is even necessary. Many of the greatest neighborhoods in the nation consist of old houses that had been rescued from a decrepit state of repair.

I make the assumption that new development is necessary when demand calls for it. Likewise, I still believe that demolition is necessary when demand calls for it. If there is no demand and too much supply, demolition should trim that supply. If there's very high demand and a short supply, then obviously demolition will be used in this case to make room for new supply.

And whether something is a prairie or not *does* make a difference. People want to live in a neighborhood--somewhere with eyes on the street, and where they can walk to the neighborhood retail strip, public transit, etc. In other words: safety and convenience. If people want to live in a rural area, they can live Up North and not have to pay City of Detroit taxes.

That's why developers build those things.

[ghettopalmetto]

I make the assumption that new development is necessary when demand calls for it. Likewise, I still believe that demolition is necessary when demand calls for it. If there is no demand and too much supply, demolition should trim that supply. If there's very high demand and a short supply, then obviously demolition will be used in this case to make room for new supply.


That's why developers build those things.

I'm going to be honest. I don't have a clue what you're trying to say.

I think you're trying to apply short-term economic principles to buildings that last over 100 years. The construction business can't provide instantaneous response to the slightest tick in economic indicators. Changes in construction are, for all intents and purposes, intended to be permanent. It takes years for a new project to go from idea to completion. So, no matter how much you believe the wild-ass theory that demolition *right now* is *absolutely necessary* to "trim supply" [[for some reason known only to God and you), that doesn't make it true.

Hell, look at downtown. We were told that Hudson's *needed* to be demolished because:
1) It had been vacant for 15 years
2) It was so big, that there was too much supply of space and
3) It was getting in the way of redevelopment.

Do any of those sound familiar to you?

Now, I think it's rather interesting that one of the major projects downtown right now is a complete renovation of the David Whitney Building. The Hudson's site sits vacant 16 years later, save for an underground parking garage that was built by the City of Detroit. So, now explain to us how there is any evidence in the world to support the validity of your crackpot theory?

[iheartthed]

Well, you can't build a new house on top of an old one, can you? What do you think use to occupy all that new development? Older development that was demolished to make way for new development. Whether it was a prairie or not doesn't make a difference.

The difference is that developers are deciding to demolish and rebuild on a land parcel. Developers are making a business decision to acquire a building, demolish it and construct a new building. That's completely different from the government deciding that the solution to its blight problem is to demolish all of the abandoned structures.