A question of land use in Detroit

After an evening of messing around on Google, it has come to my attention that Portland has a larger land mass [[145.4 sq miles) then Detroit [[143 sq miles) while Detroit has a population of 100,000+ more people. Currently one of the leading ideas on how to save Detroit is to downsize the city and consolidate the remaining population into a list of selected neighborhoods to make the city more manageable. However Portland seems to show it is not only possible to run a city with 140+ sq miles with a population of under 1 million, but that it can be done with 145 sq miles and still be considered a wonderful place to live. So my question is: what is Portland doing so right with there land use that Detroit cant get right?
EDIT: for sake of argument i posted this on Portland's Reddit page to get their reaction which was fairly interesting and worth a read http://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/15wt4s/portland_vs_detroit_a_question_of_land_use/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by louis

After an evening of messing around on Google, it has come to my attention that Portland has a larger land mass [[145.4 sq miles) then Detroit [[143 sq miles) while Detroit has a population of 100,000+ more people. Currently one of the leading ideas on how to save Detroit is to downsize the city and consolidate the remaining population into a list of selected neighborhoods to make the city more manageable. However Portland seems to show it is not only possible to run a city with 140+ sq miles with a population of under 1 million, but that it can be done with 145 sq miles and still be considered a wonderful place to live. So my question is: what is Portland doing so right with there land use that Detroit cant get right?

---

The thing is, Detroit was designed to fit nearly 2 million people in its boundaries. On 40 foot parcel you could have anywhere from a 2-4 family home. I'm not familiar with Portland, but I'm pretty sure the land wasn't plotted as dense as Detroit was to accomadate the higher population. The problem is the population is clustered in dense sections of the city. If the population was spread out in surburban plots, it wouldn't be as vacant.

Louis, you do bring up a valid point... and one reason why I don't pay as much attention to statistics as some do around here.

Here's a list of the largest cities in the country by land area...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...cities_by_area

Now if you take away the first 4 in Alaska... you'll find that some cities such as Jacksonville and Indianapolis, and many others [[even Houston)... that are much larger, but have a lower per square mile population density.

However, as Shollin mentioned Detroit does have quite a bit of infrastructure that is built up, but unused in our 139 sq. miles. Also a very large percentage of the population in the city is very poor and undereducated, compared to most other American cities.

But if you increased the city land area by going 10 miles north of 8 Mile, and 10 miles west of Telegraph.... the city would be in the top 5 once again... probably approaching its' 1954 high of 2 million.... as unlikely as such a scenario might seem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

The thing is, Detroit was designed to fit nearly 2 million people in its boundaries.

---

Nah, not really. I mean, that's one of those things that's repeated over and over and over again so many times you don't question it but, honestly? When Detroit was at its peak population, with 3 million people squeezed in and around the city in 1944, it was too crowded. You had whole families living in one room in the black quarter. You had white people running ads for weeks asking for housing of any quality and not finding any on offer. You had people living in barns, in garages, in swiftly slapped-together housing nobody would choose today.

As something of an expert on Detroit in the 1940s-1950s, I'd have to say the OP's point is valid.

I think a better way to put it is that the Detroit government can't afford to govern 143 square miles of predominately low income residents and empty industrial buildings that no longer contribute to the city's coffers. If the city had a more appropriate mix of incomes and taxpaying businesses, like Portland has, then it wouldn't be a problem.

For example: Where does Portland have to maintain the infrastructure for what is otherwise an urban prairie, save but a few homes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Nah, not really. I mean, that's one of those things that's repeated over and over and over again so many times you don't question it but, honestly? When Detroit was at its peak population, with 3 million people squeezed in and around the city in 1944, it was too crowded. You had whole families living in one room in the black quarter. You had white people running ads for weeks asking for housing of any quality and not finding any on offer. You had people living in barns, in garages, in swiftly slapped-together housing nobody would choose today.

As something of an expert on Detroit in the 1940s-1950s, I'd have to say the OP's point is valid.

---

I'm pretty sure Portland wasn't plotted as dense as Detroit was. Lots of areas have 2 family homes on 36 foot wide lots. I'm pretty sure Portland doesn't have that kind of housing stock. Detroit was designed to accomadate more population than Portland. I doubt 1.2 million people were living in garages, which is the difference in population between Detroit's peak and Portland's peak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

I'm pretty sure Portland wasn't plotted as dense as Detroit was. Lots of areas have 2 family homes on 36 foot wide lots.

---

Not sure whether you're talking about Portland or Detroit, but there are lots of areas of Detroit that are low-density. In fairness, a lot of them were finished up after the "golden age" of 1944-1951. But, yes, practically the entire northwest side is single-family colonials with lawns, duplexes at most. You could probably argue that most of Detroit was more suburban than any other American city at the time. It had the highest rate of home ownership of any large American city. Outside the boulevard, it was primarily low-density.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

Detroit was designed to accomadate more population than Portland. I doubt 1.2 million people were living in garages, which is the difference in population between Detroit's peak and Portland's peak.

---

Well, repeating your point doesn't make it necessarily any truer, Shollin. Hey, don't take my word for it. Go read descriptions of life in the 1940s in Detroit. Talk to those who lived through it. What you find are descriptions of a place where your pay might be great, but the city is so jam-packed with people you might not be able to rent a room for yourself, or fit yourself onto a streetcar, or even get a dance at a cheap cabaret.

When people say Detroit was designed for anything, I kind of have to chuckle. It wasn't designed for what it did. It wasn't designed to go through the worst, longest depression in history and then go through five years jam-packed with war workers. It was rigged up so it'd work, yeah, but Detroit wasn't designed the way some cities are. It was completely given over the the exigencies of industry, with hardly a system to hold it together. You don't run a city on a high-risk, boom-bust industry like autos and end up with a smartly organized city "designed" for anything, let alone 2 million people.

In 1970, Detroit had over 520,000 housing units. Portland at it's peak has 230,000 housing units. In 1950 I'm going to say Detroit had more housing units than 1970, so Detroit had over double the housing units as Portland. Detroit's housing units have also steadily declined. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Take away 60% of Portland's peak population and see how good it looks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

In 1970, Detroit had over 520,000 housing units. Portland at it's peak has 230,000 housing units. In 1950 I'm going to say Detroit had more housing units than 1970, so Detroit had over double the housing units as Portland.

---

Well, I'm gonna bet you'd be wrong there. Detroit's building boom lasted into the 1960s, with whole neighborhoods built out after the war. There was very little in the way of durable housing built during the war, most of it temporary war worker housing.

The point is, and I hadn't considered it until tonight, that we're always saying that the city was "designed" for 2 million people. But at its peak population, the city was crammed full of people and didn't have the housing, transit or even entertainment to meet the needs of those people.

After 1951, the city's population started dropping. Could the Detroit of 1975 have held 2 million residents in comfort? Maybe. We'll never know. The Detroit of 1944 sure had a hard job trying to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Well, I'm gonna bet you'd be wrong there. Detroit's building boom lasted into the 1960s, with whole neighborhoods built out after the war. There was very little in the way of durable housing built during the war, most of it temporary war worker housing.

The point is, and I hadn't considered it until tonight, that we're always saying that the city was "designed" for 2 million people. But at its peak population, the city was crammed full of people and didn't have the housing, transit or even entertainment to meet the needs of those people.

After 1951, the city's population started dropping. Could the Detroit of 1975 have held 2 million residents in comfort? Maybe. We'll never know. The Detroit of 1944 sure had a hard job trying to.

---

Where are these neighborhoods that were built out in the 60's? I lived at 8 mile and Schoenherr, literally 1 block south of 8 Mile, and the entire neighborhood was built in the late 40's. My house in Harper Woods was built in 1951. Eastland Mall was built in 1957. My parents house in Eastpointe was built in 1952. A lot of the inner ring suburbs were built out by 1960.

Chicago in 1970 average 2.79 people per housing unit and Detroit averaged 2.86. Nearly identical Are you saying Chicago had inadequate housing?

Lets just accept your premise. In any event, Detroit at its peak had over double the housing units as Portland does in the same footprint. Detroit was built to be a much denser city than Portland. Again, Portland also didn't lose 60% of its population. St Louis has lost 60% and look at how bad St Louis is.

According to the US census, housing units from 1940 to 1950 increased by 18.8%. From 1950 to 1960, they increased by 5.9%. In 1960, Philadelphia had 2,002,000 people in 649,100 housing units for a total of 3.084 people per housing unit. I guess they were built for 2 million people either. Chicago at it's peak averaged 2.92 people per housing unit. Detroit averaged 3.01. Neither of these cities were designed to house their populations. I guess everyone was living in garages.

I think nain hit BINGO

I've never been to Portland, nor do I have the resources to go to Portland, but I've been touring Portland via google streetview and I can't believe this comparison is even being made. Literally within blocks of downtown, you have winding roads through suburban neighborhoods with single family homes on what would be equivalent to 3 Detroit lots. Portland was designed like a suburb. Where in Detroit did you ever see wooded country roads like this?

http://i47.tinypic.com/2lu5mvo.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

I've never been to Portland, nor do I have the resources to go to Portland, but I've been touring Portland via google streetview and I can't believe this comparison is even being made. Literally within blocks of downtown, you have winding roads through suburban neighborhoods with single family homes on what would be equivalent to 3 Detroit lots. Portland was designed like a suburb. Where in Detroit did you ever see wooded country roads like this?

http://i47.tinypic.com/2lu5mvo.png

---

Brightmoor.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bright...=12,30.52,,0,0

Cute, but you know what I meant. Brightmor at it's peak was a fairly dense neighborhood, denser than Portland. Detroit was built as a city to house nearly 2 million. Portland was not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Brightmoor.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bright...=12,30.52,,0,0

---

LMAO...that isn't a designed country road. Nice try though.

BTW, Detroit's land area is 138 and Portland's is 133. The rest is water.

Now riddle me this. Philadelphia has a land area of 135 square miles, right in the middle of Portland and Detroit. Its population is more than Detroit and Portland's population combined, yet has numerous neighborhoods that are largely vacant.

Portland has far more park land than Detroit. Forest Park by itself is over 5,000 acres is size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parks_in_Portland,_Oregon

Another 11 sq. miles of the city's area is water. While Portland's overall density is lower than Detroit's, the areas of the city that are actually occupied have more people than the same amount of land in Detroit.

Philly's maintained density downtown in a way that Detroit has not:

http://zipatlas.com/us/pa/philadelph...on-density.htm

http://zipatlas.com/us/mi/detroit/zi...on-density.htm

This illustrates how Detroit's population exodus has hollowed out the city especially near downtown.

http://drawingdetroit.wordpress.com/...ation-density/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

Portland has far more park land than Detroit. Forest Park by itself is over 5,000 acres is size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parks_in_Portland,_Oregon

Another 11 sq. miles of the city's area is water. While Portland's overall density is lower than Detroit's, the areas of the city that are actually occupied have more people than the same amount of land in Detroit.

---

Yeah, a good quarter of Detroit's 138.7 square miles of land is vacant and likely won't be built on, and this isn't including Detroit's parkland, so what's your point? Sometimes, I understand these distinctions, but for all intents and purposes, Detroit functions very similarly to cities with significant amounts of dedicated parkland/wildlands if even now inadvertently.

BTW, for anyone that wants to know, random fact, but I believe of th 11th to 20th largest cities in the country - the peer group Detroit know resides in as either the 17th ot 18th largest city - Detroit remains either the first or second densest of this set even after the 25% population loss last decade. It shows you just how dense the city was, or rather just how sprawly these newer cities are given that Detroit was hugely dense even in its heyday. That said, at around 13,300 people per square mile at its peak - and possibly more is the 2.1 million estimate mid-decade in the 1950's is to be beleived - it still rank as one of the densest major American cities today if it still had its peak density.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

I think a better way to put it is that the Detroit government can't afford to govern 143 square miles of predominately low income residents and empty industrial buildings that no longer contribute to the city's coffers. If the city had a more appropriate mix of incomes and taxpaying businesses, like Portland has, then it wouldn't be a problem.

For example: Where does Portland have to maintain the infrastructure for what is otherwise an urban prairie, save but a few homes?

---

Agreed. The problem is complex. It's not just number of square miles and number of people. It's that the people who are left are disproportionately poor and uneducated. Combined with an infrastructural cost which is disproportionately old and expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

BTW, Detroit's land area is 138 and Portland's is 133. The rest is water.

Now riddle me this. Philadelphia has a land area of 135 square miles, right in the middle of Portland and Detroit. Its population is more than Detroit and Portland's population combined, yet has numerous neighborhoods that are largely vacant.

---

I think you and 'nerd make good points. I agree with your point that Detroit built far more structures than the current population can support... But Portland is currently at peak population so I'm not sure that says anything about how well Portland uses its land. I agree with 'nerd that Detroit wasn't "designed" -- at least after a certain point in time -- so much as it was just thrown together without critical thought for long term sustainability.

Re: Philadelphia. That's a city that I often compare with Detroit around here because that city peaked at a similar population as Detroit and has a similar land area as Detroit [[so similar peak density). However, post peak Philly has not lost nearly as large a percentage of its population as post peak Detroit [[25% vs. 60%). Philly seems to have planned better for long term population stability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtowncitylover

LMAO...that isn't a designed country road. Nice try though.

---

Looks the same to me! Now this whole arguement is kind of silly. It is introduced as land use, but in effect it is not land use. The topic seems to be density. To Piggy back on Philly comments in hopes to steer this the right direction: Philly is a city with a lot of its land reserved for transportation uses. These include ports and airports. It also had large parks. Much of its population lives in multi-family or attached housing. This affords it better access to public transit. The public transit has been able to keep the downtown's retail environment relatively healthy, not great, but a far cry better than most cities in a similar boat.

Portland has a mountain park within city limits, and huge areas of hilly, suburban neighborhoods.

There are parts of Portland that look like Franklin or Bloomfield Township, and there were never really dense apartment neighborhoods anywhere, not even in the working class/poor parts.

I just found this interesting graphic representation of population density via a skyscraperpage forum:

http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/...d-in-one-city/