https://photos.metrotimes.com/these-...de=1&june-2009
Printable View
Nice link. But as I view Detroit through posts on YouTube, seems like there have not been near enough demos. Sad, sad.
An A for intent, a C for effort, and a T for nice try.
Ray, I agree with you regarding the neighborhoods, but every single one of those downtown and midtown demolitions would have been much better renovated instead.
Lacking that possibility anymore, what can we do to encourage the parking lots that have replaced them to be again replaced with people-friendly mixed uses that contribute to the revitalization of our core?
Some of them perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by bust
I sure would like to see that vintage architecture around still. A well-maintained brick house from the 20's makes me smile.
BUT,.. you end up spending pretty much new house money to renovate many of them,.. and end up with old house floor plans. Houses too close to each-other,... no attached garages, etc.
Remember,.. those houses were built when people primarily wanted to live as close as possible to the trolley, as cars were somewhat rare still,...
Now people who are looking to spend $300k+ expect an attached garage [[which increases safety,.. makes it easier to unload your car after a trip to Costco,... and decreases your auto insurance).
When you renovate those old houses,.. you have to do everything. The bathrooms need to be bigger,.. closets need to be bigger,.. most didn't have any insulation,.. and none had A/C. So you need to convert from radiators to forced air. Move all the walls,.. often give up a bedroom to get the bedroom, closet and bathroom size to modern expectations. So now you're trying to sell a 2 bedroom house for 3 bedroom money.
It's a big job. You end up with just the brick shell of the original house. And even that needs to be completely tuck-pointed.
And the walls aren't thick enough to get modern levels of insulation in them. R-13 with fiberglass in the walls,.. unless you totally gut the house and do spray-in, in which case you can at least get to R-22.
Really in the less desirable neighborhoods,.. you want to renovate every-other house,.. and include the empty lot next door as a fenced yard. And in the more desirable neighborhoods,.. you ball down 5 houses and build 3,... with more space in-between them. [[8' between houses means fire spreads super quick.)
Then as you get close to a main road like Woodward, Grand River etc,.. you have low-rise townhouses and apt buildings,.. in case mass transit ever takes off.
Detroit needs to start taxing parking lots at a much higher rate. Currently they're taxed the same as an unimproved empty lot [[those also need to be taxed at a higher rate as well to encourage development of them). Olympia as much as admitted that they compare the cost of maintaining/redeveloping a building vs. demolishing it and creating surface parking. And surface parking wins 99% of the time. It's time to stop making parking lots so damn profitable an option compared to redevelopment or mothballing still-standing buildings.
I'm not saying surface parking should be taxed out of existence, but it shouldn't be so damn profitable that it causes so much destruction and seas of parking lots.
The only issue with a higher parking lot tax is that the owners will simply pass along the cost to consumers.
You then get into a slippery slope of what point will people simply say "forget it" about going downtown to work or spend money if the cost of parking is unaffordable, which will lead to other unintended consequences.
I've thought this for a long time as well. Surface lots should be taxed at the value of the building that would most likely be built there if it were to be developed. So, a surface lot souurounded by single story buildings would be taxed a lot lower than one in the middle of high rise buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by middetres
Great point. City managers in other "urban" downtowns like RO and Birmingham could really take advantage of this by promoting free or cheap parking. Paying even $5 for parking in Royal Oak already drives people to rage at city meetings; it could be a massive PR coup for the first city to just make parking really cheap, especially if downtown Detroit costs go up even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
I'd love to say that higher costs would make people take public transit, but we all know that won't happen with our current system.
Sad that you have this opinion. Do you ever go to other cities and see the amazing historic buildings they have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
Post 4 is why I say demolish most of the old [[non-historical) blocks of houses that simply aren't worth renovating. Reshape the blocks by laying out bigger lots to better incorporate yards and attached garages.
To turn a city into the world's shittiest suburb?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdd
To be fair, as Bham correctly points out, 7 Mile and Gratiot doesn't have the urbanity of, say, Hell's Kitchen.
However, I seriously doubt that many looking for "urban living" have "attached garage" on the top of their priorities list. Yes, A/C is nice, but Shelby Township is there if you want a giant shitbox house that looks like a storage unit.
As an aside, I most certainly did not have an attached garage in Detroit and now I have one. I find it to be at best a liability. Great way for the house to catch on fire or someone to break in. I use it as a shed, basically. I mean, it isn't that difficult to walk an extra fifteen feet. No wonder people are so obese now.
A word that needs to be banished from the language.Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
Note that only the portion of the post that's being responded to is quoted.
Totally agree. I think in a lot of cases that’s where we are now.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
If the CC really wanted to press their hand, could they simply Zone surface parking lots out of business in certain areas?
If the lot is filled every day, the increased tax would be passed on, but the folks using the lot probably work nearby. Not a lot of people are making employment decisions based on parking fees. Plus, it might encourage using the land for a parking structure instead of surface parking.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
If the lot is only filled on game days, then the tax may be enough to encourage new uses for the land. And it would change the equations Macedonians use to decide to demolish a building.
Those who want wider lots and attached garages are not looking at what is selling to younger buyers today. In cities around the country the most sought after housing is classic urban style housing [[townhouses, large apartments, older homes, often smallish in size), particularly if close to the city center and/or good mass transit options. It is those homes that are rising in value the fastest almost everywhere now, including the limited supply in the City of Detroit.
Turning Detroit into something more like Livonia is not going to help the city. And neither is continuing to demolish what we have left of our historical cityscape, or replacing old with new out of some misguided outmoded notion that newer is always better. Making Detroit more urban, not less, more like other successful large cities, and less like the suburbs, should be the goal going forward.
^ ^^ You know the whole city doesn't have to have the same type of housing, right?
Different strokes and all ....