Printable View
This article points out the fact that people are not leaving the metro Detroit area in very large numbers.
"We're often told that Detroit has been abandoned—but the metro area is stable, and addressing sprawl is still a challenge"
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...inking/240193/
I think economics has stopped the sprawl challenge!
I do agree that we need to take regional approaches to this, but people are going to continue to leave unless we have jobs for them. The suburbs will continue to draw people from the city looking for better schools for thier kids and safety. The regional approach should adress safety and schools, not leed housing or architects fantasyland. There is no money here to build architect fantasyland, and why do so when so many of the current homes in the region are affordable and so many stores and industrial areas are vacant?
I agree. The Architect Fantasyland of the outer suburbs is wholly unaffordable and should have never been built.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
Finally, some sanity. But losing 250,000 people region wide is still a pretty big deal.
sprawl is among our biggest problems. If people continue to move outward the overall population of the Detroit area stays close to the same it will accelerate the decline of our inner ring suburbs. Some of these suburbs dont really have the same quality of housing stock as you will find in the city. Look at what happened to Brightmoor. There are areas of detroit that have been very neglected but aside from peeling paint and and occasional burned out shell the majority of homes look pretty good. They were built well.
The way to stop the sprawl and bring back the city is form a regional planning authority for land use and transportation that can raise funds to build a mass transit system to connect city to major surburban hubs. Then dense neighborhoods can grow up around the stations on these transit lines.
An alternative to suburban living must be offered within the city. The city has for far to long aspired to be more like the suburbs, when it should really be more like other major urban cities that have walkable vibrant neighborhoods with decent transit and amenities.
Amen, brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by casscorridor
While I agree that a regional planning authority needs more teeth, its a hard battle in Michigan because we are a home rule state. This means local governments only coordinate when it is in thier own self interest to do so. Otherwise they play screw thier neighbor to get the newest Walmart or McDonalds because they are concenred about growing thier tax base, not the region as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by casscorridor
I don't agree that transportation is the magic bullet. Transportation improvements lag behind development here. Sprawl is not caused by widening roads, putting in bus lines, or building new freeways. It is caused by poor land use decisions at the local level. Where transportation comes into play is that we all have to pay for the bad actions of others and each dollar spent to widen a congested road takes money away from maintaining the current system. When those roads need major work, you now have to fix a 5 lane road instead of a 2 lane road. Which costs more?
Fix the local land use polies and you will fix transportation. I am reminded of my trips to see my sister who lives in very suburban Orange County, California. This county has strict land use guidelines and lots of open space. Subdivisions are interconnected with neighborhood businesses, buses run on all major streets, Big Boxes are forced to build the minimum amount of parking and cannot be placed at the back of the lot behind a sea of parking, Most stores are pulled up tight to the street and well landscaped. You never see development like that occur here because thats just not how the average person thinks.
What they need to do is quit with the planning, consulting, studying, talking, meeting, considering and START EFFIN' DOING SOMETHING.Quote:
Originally Posted by casscorridor
With the time and money they've spent blathering on, they could have been well on the way to something meaningful.
Every city has a planning dept. Have those depts. advised councils on the land use policies you see in CA?Quote:
Most stores are pulled up tight to the street and well landscaped. You never see development like that occur here because thats just not how the average person thinks.
What are some examples of bad land use? Oakland Mall? Bigfoot homes?
I notice CA is a home rule state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Ru..._United_States
This reminds me of the Titanic, where people selfishly took life boats for just themselves and watched everyone else drown. I bet some of those people were too thinking "Why coordinate when it's not in my own self-interest?" Meanwhile, the entire ship sank and almost everyone died.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
CA does not have the township system though. Unicorporated areas are under the jurisdiction of the County. http://www.ocpublicworks.com/PCPW/default.aspxQuote:
Originally Posted by maxx
Brush I don't disagree with your statement. We have faults in our political process that translate to a lot of waste.
"I don't agree that transportation is the magic bullet. Transportation improvements lag behind development here. Sprawl is not caused by widening roads, putting in bus lines, or building new freeways. It is caused by poor land use decisions at the local level. Where transportation comes into play is that we all have to pay for the bad actions of others and each dollar spent to widen a congested road takes money away from maintaining the current system. When those roads need major work, you now have to fix a 5 lane road instead of a 2 lane road. Which costs more? "
Best summary of the cause and effect of SE Michigan's sprawl I've read in a long time.
Detroit is shrinking in population not territorial size. As long as more middle class people [[ especially Middle Class Black Families hitting 8 Mile Rd.) Detroit will shrink until it become a city a very large urban prarie like Pontiac.
The article reminds me of the discussion we had in the 90's about what is the meaning of "is". All the article is telling us to do, is, if we don't like the facts, change the base on which the facts are calculated from to give a more palatable answer. It don't make any difference at all; the city still lost 25% population in the last decade and sharing the loss isn't going to change it.
If you take an enlarged 10 county greater Detroit area you come up with 160,000 people who left. About 3.1% loss. That is not stable. Sprawl is another issue.
I think the important thing to mention here, the one fact that was conveniently left out of the article, is that metro Detroit lost population [[anywhere from 2% - 3.1% depending on how one defines "metro Detroit") at a time where the nation as a whole grew in population by 9.6%.
Metro Detroit's population is shrinking at time when everyone else in the country is growing.
There are, I'm afraid, some very fundamental things that need to change in SE Michigan.