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

[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.