State to Unveil Detroit Demolition Plans

According to the article the city is claiming it costs $8,000.00 do demolish a house. Snyder is saying it can be done for half of that if certain regulations are relaxed. I'd like to know what these regulations are and if it will impact public health in a negative way. If not, then hopefully it's true. I would think that would be quite an embarrassment for the City though, and you would then know there are kickbacks going on even in the demolition of the City.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...677917310.html

Where have you seen Snyder or anyone, with any knowledge about demolitions, claim that houses can be demolished for $4000? If its further in that article, I can't see it because you have to subscribe. But I would love to see such a quote. I don't think permits are a big part of the cost so the only regulations I could see them relaxing that would impact cost in any significant way is if they don't care how they remediate asbestos or lead paint and they don't care what soil they use to backfill or whether it is properly graded after backfilling. Perhaps they'll also just dump the debris into the hole that is left to reduce the cost of dirt to backfill and reduce the cost of hauling away the debris???

I might believe there could be some savings, but half the price?

BTW, the $8000 quoted by the city is average if you check the industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpbollma

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...677917310.html

According to the article the city is claiming it costs $8,000.00 do demolish a house. Snyder is saying it can be done for half of that if certain regulations are relaxed. I'd like to know what these regulations are and if it will impact public health in a negative way. If not, then hopefully it's true. I would think that would be quite an embarrassment for the City though, and you would then know there are kickbacks going on even in the demolition of the City.

---

Not necessarily. Contractors overcharging doesn't always mean kickbacks. It could simply mean stupidity.

I'd bet on stupidity.

But in trash and demolition -- kickbacks can never be ruled out.

On public health... I think you should think about the public health impact of abandoned houses -- where scrappers strip pipes of asbestos insulation and throw it to the wind -- and where young children play and nibble on lead paint.

I couldn't read article -- but the regulations might not be environmental.

Sorry guys! I don;t subscribe either. I can view the entire article by going through Google News. Here is the portion that stuck out to me:

The state's broader role in running Detroit is the result of a power-sharing agreement struck in April—and endorsed by Detroit Mayor Dave Bing—to help the city stave off bankruptcy.
But the state's plans have received a cool reception among Detroit's top leaders in recent weeks. And the new state funding will fall far short of the money needed to meet Mr. Bing's target of tearing down 10,000 houses in Detroit by 2013.
Last week, Mr. Bing told an NAACP gathering here that he was unhappy with the state's approach in several new initiatives, saying that officials in Lansing excluded local experts and discounted the work the city had already done to raze 4,800 structures since 2009.
"The folks who were already doing the demolition in the city were not at the table for a number of months" with the governor's planning team, Karla Henderson, the mayor's planning chief, said in an interview this week. She noted that even under the consent agreement, "the state right now does not have the authority to tear down structures that they do not own."
Detroit officials say the city has lagged in its demolition efforts because it has been fighting for greater access to federal funds. City building officials estimate that each demolition job costs about $8,000, including asbestos removal and utility shutoffs.
Advisers to the governor say the work can be done for half that. State officials advised by industry experts—including Bill Pulte, a private-equity investor whose grandfather founded homebuilder Pulte Homes—say that relaxing city and state regulations, and working more closely with utilities, would cut costs and speed the process.

The article goes on to state that the type of a plan was enacted in Grand Rapids several years ago and was successful in stabilizing some of the neighborhoods there.

When Kwame was Mayor, didn't the city have to return funds to the Federal government, because they did not spend the money for demolition work as it was intended for?

IIRC the reason the city did not use the funds was because they did not want to hire white contractors [[They wanted "minority contractors").

So when the city claims it costs eight grand I don't trust them, they are not as interested in clearing out dangerous structures,as they are in spending the money in the "right places".

If the city was interested in clearing out dangerous buildings, they never would have stalled the process during Kwame's time in office.

The talk about "protecting" Belle Isle, really shows nothing has changed.

Thanks for the additional info.

Advisors say it can be done for half. Well, they should be specific as to what corners would be cut. But this isn't a case of kickbacks or stupidity. $8000 is a reasonable cost to do it right. The advisors need to say what the ramifications are of relaxing regulations. And they will be environmental and safety regulations. Those are the things that cost money.

It was all fine and dandy until you have a major home builder wanting to relax regulations.

The regulation relaxing would happen so fast nobody would be able to see what is being relaxed until in the future when it was to late.

There was another news piece where the neighborhood was questioning why their neighborhood was being targeted as it was already pretty much stable.

It has been two years to have a plan now all of the sudden it is rush rush at the last minute so we can do things without recourse.

No you cannot or should not shove it all in the basement and bury it as it has happened in the past,toxic chemicals leach into the ground water then into the rivers and if there is future development then there are the clean up costs,or 10 years later when all is forgotten somebody plants a garden on top of a lead base.

Call me silly but I think they should spend the funds in the worst neighborhoods to give them a push up,there are funds available every year more then what has been applied for anyways.

They could put it up for bids and use several contractors ,say 1000 home package what is your bid? The city does not pay until it signs off and the contractor puts up a bond equal to the bid in case of any corner cutting.

I agree with you. Health regulations should not be touched if it will cause suffering of the people in the neighborhoods. I would be interested in seeing how they get to a price so drastically different. Hopefully it can be done. It seems everything takes so much longer in Detroit than any other major US city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

Thanks for the additional info.

Advisors say it can be done for half. Well, they should be specific as to what corners would be cut. But this isn't a case of kickbacks or stupidity. $8000 is a reasonable cost to do it right. The advisors need to say what the ramifications are of relaxing regulations. And they will be environmental and safety regulations. Those are the things that cost money.

---

$8,000 is not an unreasonable amount for a single house demolition. But we're not talking about single demolitions.

The $8000 per has to be an average based on multiple houses ,you have one that may be burnt and only costs $2000 but then you go to a multi family that costs $12,000 so I guess they would need to clarify to the general public.

Based on this group of thousand properties the average would be $8000 per.

On the other hand if you have a dozer operator on the job it is cheaper to demolish in bulk then one single house,bigger transports use less trips,one fixed equipment move costs to the site etc.

I would think that relaxing could mean not taking out the footings [[basement). By leaving in the footings, the land becomes harder to redevelop or turn into landscaping or a farm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

I would think that relaxing could mean not taking out the footings [[basement). By leaving in the footings, the land becomes harder to redevelop or turn into landscaping or a farm.

---

In a crisis, as we are, doesn't this seem like a reasonable trade-off?

If you could do all the abandoned houses in Detroit -- but leave foundations for the property owners to deal with... [[as they should)

...or you could do 1/2 the houses propertly leaving 50% of the abandoned, vacant, dangerous, festering homes standing...

which would you pick?

[[My opinion -- as the saying goes -- perfection is the enemy of the good.)

Wesley, all I am saying is doing things half-assed discourages redevelopment of the area. Why would you want to discourage redevelopment in an area that is already watered, sewered, electrified, with streets and other infrastructure?

Let's give away these houses to people who commit to fix them up and live in them or rent them out. There's no greater public health problem, in my opinion, than a city without structures!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

Let's give away these houses to people who commit to fix them up and live in them or rent them out. There's no greater public health problem, in my opinion, than a city without structures!

---

That won't work.

Those with the funds to do so would already be purchasing these homes for the 5k to 10k they're going for. The big cost is fixing them up, not acquiring them.

Sometimes on my way home I have to bail off the freeway and I drive through neighborhoods. There are some people who have dug in, and are keeping their stuff up despite all the abandoned structures about them. Let's help those people out and tear those houses down before they generate crime or fires.

Loosening regulations is probably a good thing in this situation because of the very real danger that forgotten homes present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Wesley, all I am saying is doing things half-assed discourages redevelopment of the area. Why would you want to discourage redevelopment in an area that is already watered, sewered, electrified, with streets and other infrastructure?

---

I do understand that concern. The blighted structures left behind do that well enough already. I hope the 'relaxed' regulations aren't so much half-asses as they are efficient. Maybe we really can get more blight removed with the same money -- and without an increased health risk.

It would be cool if they could figure out a way to infill the basement with some sort of nontoxic foam [[think the foam safety system in the car in Demolition man). That way, the rest of the house could be demolished, dirt placed over the foam, and redevelopent of the land could be more efficient in the future.

So if they demo then place a lien on the property say for instance the full $8 k then you have a dead piece of property because they could not sell it for $200 now they need $8200,I guess it becomes complicated because if you have a speculator that owns numerous properties if you are giving them a complimentary demo you are encouraging the practice.

They have to do a in depth search before they can demo anyways so if they go after the speculators and lien their other properties or charge them for the demo they can then use those funds to keep on going on to the next one .

It is not really fair to the taxpayer for somebody to go to auction and buy a property for $500 then expect the city to come in and do the clean up for them, it is going to keep the cycle going with no plans other then just demoing everything and it snowballs and probably some cases hurts a neighborhood even more by creating lots that most likely will remain empty and overgrown and continue to be a problem it will never end and always cost more monies.

Like 1953 posted there are a lot of old home people that have no problem living in a fixer upper ,maybe take out the worst of the worst on a large scale which would be cheaper per house and come up with a plan for the rest.

To bad Sears no longer sells kit homes you could offer a lot and a house assembly required.

My aunt lives by Warren and Chalmers. Her block only has 3 structures standing including her house. She's old and she enjoys the empty space. It's like retiring up north but being in the city. The next block they built some new homes about 10-12 years ago. They are now mostly vacant and boarded up. She says she wouldn't mind if they tore up the street and made it gravel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

My aunt lives by Warren and Chalmers. Her block only has 3 structures standing including her house. She's old and she enjoys the empty space. It's like retiring up north but being in the city. The next block they built some new homes about 10-12 years ago. They are now mostly vacant and boarded up. She says she wouldn't mind if they tore up the street and made it gravel.

---

Not sure why Detroit always thinks its a good idea to build new single family homes in areas of town that no one at all wants to live in. Then you just end up with more blight. If they are going to build or refurbish homes they should focus on places where people actually want to live like Rosedale, The Villiages, Woodbidge, Boston-Edison ect. redevelop or build more in Corktown and Midtown, or at the old Tiger Stadium location. Detroit needs more multi-family units not more single family homes in undesirable locations..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

Let's give away these houses to people who commit to fix them up and live in them or rent them out. There's no greater public health problem, in my opinion, than a city without structures!

---

1. Nobody wants to fix these buildings up. The city is practically giving them away already and there are no takers.

2. A greater public health problem than a city without structures, in my opinion, is a city with empty/broken-down/burned-out/etc. structures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jolla

1. Nobody wants to fix these buildings up. The city is practically giving them away already and there are no takers.

2. A greater public health problem than a city without structures, in my opinion, is a city with empty/broken-down/burned-out/etc. structures.

---

Overall I agree with this. Get rid of the blight, focus city services to help people in these areas that actually keep up their homes, go after slum lords to fix up their properties, and develop in areas that are actually desirable. Sell these acres of empty land off for farming, let residents farm it, or throw down some flower seeds. Maybe someday in the future, someone will want to buy this land, but as of now 140 sq miles for 700,000 people [[with likely an even smaller population at the next census) makes absolutely no sense and is bankrupting the city. Also, lease the large parks to the state or metro area as state or metro parks with a fee. The fee will be used to refurbish them and serve as a way to keep people out who only want to squat there, liter, or cause other problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jolla

1. Nobody wants to fix these buildings up. The city is practically giving them away already and there are no takers.

2. A greater public health problem than a city without structures, in my opinion, is a city with empty/broken-down/burned-out/etc. structures.

---

If they offer no taxes for ten years provided they maintain as a primary residence then that might help and add to the overall good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpbollma

Not sure why Detroit always thinks its a good idea to build new single family homes in areas of town that no one at all wants to live in. Then you just end up with more blight. If they are going to build or refurbish homes they should focus on places where people actually want to live like Rosedale, The Villiages, Woodbidge, Boston-Edison ect. redevelop or build more in Corktown and Midtown, or at the old Tiger Stadium location. Detroit needs more multi-family units not more single family homes in undesirable locations..

---

We need to let go of the idea that detached, single-family dwellings are the 'American Dream'. Even in good times, there's much to be said about dense, attached dwellings. And in tough times -- there's a lot to be said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

We need to let go of the idea that detached, single-family dwellings are the 'American Dream'. Even in good times, there's much to be said about dense, attached dwellings. And in tough times -- there's a lot to be said.

---

Totally agreed. I think one good thing for Detroit would be to put multi-family units on the old Tiger stadium site with a nice park.

Also, knock over the old Brewster buildings and do the same there. Offer different pricing for units [[do not make them all low income) and put a stipulation in the lease that along with your security deposit you must also from $425 per year [[or split this up and attach to the monthly payments). This would go towards private security to compliment the police. some units could be more basic with the usual cheaper apartment carpet and linoleum, with better units available with tile, wood floor, and granite type features.

Lafayette Park has a mixed income, nice park areas, and private security and this model seems to work well in that area. Why not expand this idea?

Detroit has pursued a strategy of ruralizing itself for fifty years; it doesn't seem to be working. We have to devise new strategies for attracting people and investment if we wish to remain a city at all. Vacant lots in an impoverished place reduce street life vitality and make it easier to commit crime. It is imperative that we stop creating vacant places. Let us pursue a policy of growth and development, not surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

Detroit has pursued a strategy of ruralizing itself for fifty years; it doesn't seem to be working. We have to devise new strategies for attracting people and investment if we wish to remain a city at all. Vacant lots in an impoverished place reduce street life vitality and make it easier to commit crime. It is imperative that we stop creating vacant places. Let us pursue a policy of growth and development, not surrender.

---

Detroit is not going to be 1.8 million again. Detroit is still denser than cities such as Phoenix and Houston. The population needs to be spread out. People on this forum are hung up on density and walkability. Detroit is not that place anymore.

Right. In order to fill this empty space up, you would need A. People who actually want to be there, and B. a shit ton of money. With the expansion of the Greenway connecting Midtown-Downtown-New Center-Eastern Market-Woodbridge, the people mover, bussing, and possible M1 rail I think the core of the city can still be that walkable area everyone wants it to be. Also, with so much apartment building in Downtown/Midtown I believe this will be quite a dense area in the next ten years. Maybe once Downtown, Midtown,New Center, Corktown, Woodbridge, Lafayette Park, Eastern Market, Rivertown are filled to capacity THEN people will be more apt to venture out more. Other viable neighborhoods like Palmer Woods, Rosedale, THe Villages, Boston-Edison ect should definitely be up kept and possibly try to attract some small delis or other small businesses to those areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

Detroit is not going to be 1.8 million again. Detroit is still denser than cities such as Phoenix and Houston. The population needs to be spread out. People on this forum are hung up on density and walkability. Detroit is not that place anymore.

---

I do not see why not,you can say never and convince yourself that it will never happen and guaranteed it will never happen .

In all fairness it is not only the people on this forum hung up on walk-ability and density it is just the way every city is going , given a choice and a nice day would you rather walk 6 blocks to a restaurant or drive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Smiles

When Kwame was Mayor, didn't the city have to return funds to the Federal government, because they did not spend the money for demolition work as it was intended for?

IIRC the reason the city did not use the funds was because they did not want to hire white contractors [[They wanted "minority contractors").

So when the city claims it costs eight grand I don't trust them, they are not as interested in clearing out dangerous structures,as they are in spending the money in the "right places".

If the city was interested in clearing out dangerous buildings, they never would have stalled the process during Kwame's time in office.

The talk about "protecting" Belle Isle, really shows nothing has changed.

---

I'm glad you brought up "protecting " belle isle. who was "protecting" Belle isle for the last 40 years ? The city allowed it to be run into the ground !
I noticed on the news Jo anna watson [[sp) not certain that's her name I'm not as familiar with then names of the city council, was protesting .
Belle isle is not for rent, not for loan and not for lease for 99 years .
and I thought to my self , well WTF? it's been run into the ground for 40 years if we let the folks running it the way it's been run to 40 years nothing will be left!
I mean what do they want? the city cant even keep the light on , cops on the streets , EMS up and running . They should be looking for help to help save the "jewel" of Detroit .
We are asking for help for the DIA , I don't hear they saying the same thing about that .
Like I've said before , if you can't afford $12.00 a year , a dollar a month !!!!
then what are you doing with your money ?
most people waste that on smoking, gas for the car, drinking, drinking coffee, ect
Stop being obstructive and do what's right for the city ! Letting Belle isle die is not helping !
Speramus Meliora and Resurget Cineribus, meaning "We hope for better things" and "It will rise from the ashes,"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

Detroit has pursued a strategy of ruralizing itself for fifty years; it doesn't seem to be working. We have to devise new strategies for attracting people and investment if we wish to remain a city at all. Vacant lots in an impoverished place reduce street life vitality and make it easier to commit crime. It is imperative that we stop creating vacant places. Let us pursue a policy of growth and development, not surrender.

---

Because of the WRONG approach for 50 years ! City hall has been going way for 50 years ! we need a complete overhaul of city hall ! They have been too obstructive for 50 years ! that's why the state had for FINALLY step in !
What, are we going to wait another 50 years ?
ENOUGH !,ENOUGH ,ENOUGH ENOUGH OF THIS "our" city crap ! who wants to live in a city like that ? "our" city is a mess and without some help and guidance there is no way out !
We need adults at city hall !, have you seen some of the council meetings ? mind blowing !

Speramus Meliora and Resurget Cineribus, meaning "We hope for better things" and "It will rise from the ashes,"

A keyword that popped out at me is the term "equity investment advisor". I think Detroit has an understanding of how those folks work... socialize the risks and privatize the profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

Detroit is not going to be 1.8 million again. Detroit is still denser than cities such as Phoenix and Houston. The population needs to be spread out. People on this forum are hung up on density and walkability. Detroit is not that place anymore.

---

I don't quite agree. Density is an aggregate number. I do agree that Detroit is not going to be 1.8MM in population again. But I do think you can still have density and walkability.

What that means is that areas of the city will be mostly green space and other areas will be dense, and other areas will be somewhere between.

If a neighborhood block is missing 70% of its homes due to blight, then the long term plan needs to eventually be to raze the remaining homes and turn that block into a park.

There will be plenty of density as well as plenty of ruralization and everything in between. What we need is for everyone to accept that it's going to be some of all 3 and then a unified plan to get through the transition.

Over the years forumers have come up with good ideas and sometimes not so good ideas on how to fix the the abandonment problem in Detroit, myself included. What overwhemingly goes through my mind when dealing with these problems is the idea concerning "city rights" vs. "individual rights."

The city is the entity that initially gave out plots of land to private individuals. However, now due to the ruling about eminent domain, the city virtually has no say on what it can do with its land. On the other hand, individual property owners want to feel assured that the city [[as a governmental body) won't just take their property just because the city wants it. Also, what should happen when a property owner abandones their property? Sure there are legal steps the city can take, but what to do with the abandoned property in the mean time? If the city doesn't tear down the property, then the citizens in the neighborhood get mad at the city. Is it the city's fault or the property owners fault? Who should foot the bill for tearing down the Packard plant?

This ultimately gets back to the age old argument about what's good for the individual versus what's good for society. For instance, their are some people who are happy and content with living on a block that has three houses on it versus 50 because it means less noise and perhaps less crime. There are others that feel that for the good of the city, these people need to move into more densely populated areas. What's the right decision?

In general, it is becoming basically impossible to get people to agree on anything in this country, including Detroit. Only a disaster of some kind [[think Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans) will force the hands of Detroiters to make the best decisions for all of Detroit. Even then, there will be disagreements, arguments, road blocks, barriers, backlash, protests, lawsuits, etc....What to do? What to do?

I don't understand why 1.8 million people should be the only measuring stick for Detroit to be a successful, healty city again. A lot of people seem to be so focused on that 1.8 million number, but there are plenty of cities that are successful without that many people. Detroit's recovery should begin with denser housing and business that has better city services. Let's shoot for that first. Also, I think we should stop focusing on what Detroit WAS. It will never be that incarnation of Detroit again. I think history is important, but how about a new, different, reinvented Detroit? Yes, please.

You can say that the city may never return to the 1.8 million figure again so lets downsize,but cities are built on future growth plans not future ways to shrink.

If they take the same amount of energy and devote it to a plan that involves past ,present and future I personally think that things may go a bit easier.

If you think in here and now and we need to do this now because that is what happening today you are not necessarily thinking about the future,all the decisions being made now that will effect the city for many years to come are being made based on no foundation and that is scary and desperate which is never a good time to make decisions.

There have all ways been many ways and available funds to stabilize and improve neighborhoods the problem has been the lack of representation for those neighborhoods so they have suffered and now the solution is to downsize and further demolish what is left.This is being reactive verses proactive.

If you look at last years budget you can see what neighborhoods had representation and received funds,they did not receive those funds automatically they fought for them but they are now the strongest areas in the city,this is why say instance Corktown is strong verses other areas,its because the people got together and created their own representation.

So instead of saying to a neighborhood okay you have no representation you are SOL and need to move while we demolish everything standing,would it not been easier to just represent? This is what the basis is of the new charter it puts somebody in the neighborhoods that will represent and fight for a better neighborhood,funds were returned because there was nobody in charge that had the knowledge of how they work. That is the problem when you place friends and family in the city.

So all of the decisions made today and under today's thoughts should be critically looked at, Detroit has everything in place all ready to become a major player in this world again flash decisions made are long term affecting decisions.

You can hang on to the past because that is what made you what you are today,Detroits past is the most important aspect there is nothing wrong in building on that for a future Detroit but there are not enough funds in the world to wipe the city out and say okay we are going to start over now.

The buildings are representatives of those who made the city the world class city she once was you cannot find those in such a collection anywhere else,that is an asset to the city every time you take one down to make a parking lot you are slowly chipping away,multiply that one by one through the years and soon you have erased the history that built you.

Any other city would have built a massive tourist trade around the history of the automobile and the city that it built,the music industry,theater, the war contributions , this is where it all happened and started that is something to brag about and that is why so many hang on to the past Detroit and no other city can claim that. It is called pride and when that is gone that is when you move elsewhere.

So now it is your job to put people in place in your city government that will take what your forefathers built for you blood sweat and tears and help you carry Detroit into the future.

As a city you do not destroy the past you respect it and use it to build the future making your contribution for those to come in the future,you can retreat or you can say it all stops and it is time to move foreword ,get some leadership with a proactive plan and start building a future Detroit until then you are just going to bulldoze the city until nothing is left,you will have no choice and end up with nothing to offer to future residents so why would they move there,give them a reason and all of this other stuff will become secondary.

Who cares about Chicago or any other city you have your own identity build on that.

Well, I never said that we have to 'destroy' the past. I've read a bunch of Detroit history books, hell, my dad played for Motown Records. He was also a National Guardsman during the 67 riots so I've got some first hand accounts of the D's history and I appreciate all of it. I think that our history separates us from so many other cities in the country. My impression is that there are a lot of 'oh we were the industrial power of the country and we need to get there again, and we need to have nearly 2 million people, too' type of thinking out there, and IMO that will help doom us to failure. We can't just be the Motor City anymore, we have to be 'Tech City', 'Urban Farm' city or whatever other industry we can make. Detroit cannot continue in the direction that it's been going for decades. It has to go in a new direction. I don't mind having a city of 500,000 if the city can pay its bills and provide services. If they can do that, then Detroit could grow back to 1.8 million. I'm merely asking why that has to be the primary goal of making Detroit great again?

I completely agree that decisions we make today are going to affect the future. In fact this is probably the most critical time for Detroit in recent history. However, the decisions cannot just be the old status quo that has put us in this mess. That is the history that needs to be forgotten.

Also, I didn't say it would never return to that number, I'm just saying that for me it doesn't have to.

Returning to a population of 1.8 million is a great goal, because healthy cities don't usually shrink over time. Also, walkability is an admirable objective for lots of reasons, not just population growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1953

Returning to a population of 1.8 million is a great goal, because healthy cities don't usually shrink over time. Also, walkability is an admirable objective for lots of reasons, not just population growth.

---

Is Chicago not a healthy city? What about Philadelphia, Boston, or Washington DC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmike76

Well, I never said that we have to 'destroy' the past. I've read a bunch of Detroit history books, hell, my dad played for Motown Records. He was also a National Guardsman during the 67 riots so I've got some first hand accounts of the D's history and I appreciate all of it. I think that our history separates us from so many other cities in the country. My impression is that there are a lot of 'oh we were the industrial power of the country and we need to get there again, and we need to have nearly 2 million people, too' type of thinking out there, and IMO that will help doom us to failure. We can't just be the Motor City anymore, we have to be 'Tech City', 'Urban Farm' city or whatever other industry we can make. Detroit cannot continue in the direction that it's been going for decades. It has to go in a new direction. I don't mind having a city of 500,000 if the city can pay its bills and provide services. If they can do that, then Detroit could grow back to 1.8 million. I'm merely asking why that has to be the primary goal of making Detroit great again?

I completely agree that decisions we make today are going to affect the future. In fact this is probably the most critical time for Detroit in recent history. However, the decisions cannot just be the old status quo that has put us in this mess. That is the history that needs to be forgotten.

---

See we are on the same page,but I am not saying that it needs to be at the 1.8 million mark tomorrow,just while going into the future do not write off the possibility because the infrastructure which is the most costly is already there so if the possibility comes in the future it can be done cost effectively.

You are correct the city needs to have a more diverse economy but speaking from direct experience,that is being stifled by the city and state,they do not want the industrial aspect anymore while other cities are embracing and profiting from it.That is why I am here ,which is to find out if it is going to take a generation of retraining for the city workforce to become entirely tech based,currently you have a city and state writing off an entire generation of workforce or throwing them under the bus so to speak to build this new Detroit is it worth it?

Keep everything on the table old,new,the past present and the future,because somebody or something does not factor in our train of thought we have a tendency to forget the faces behind what we are doing and snap decisions affect live people.

It is an easy decision for me personally if the city maintains that they do not want a manufacturing base anymore then so be it,but it would be unfair to make that decision now based on what I have learned of the currant administration or pass judgement on the residents without a proactive involved government in place.I am not the only one recession or not companies are formed and relocated everyday.Lots of unnecessary lost opportunities for a struggling city are happening currently.

Actually, if you look at recent population numbers of 'healthy cities' like Chicago, a lot of them have decreased, just not to the degree of Detroit. Shrinking isn't healthy, so Detroit is definitely not either [[maybe the most obvious statement posted on this site). I'm ok with shrinking a bit and expanding after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmike76

Actually, if you look at recent population numbers of 'healthy cities' like Chicago, a lot of them have decreased, just not to the degree of Detroit. Shrinking isn't healthy, so Detroit is definitely not either [[maybe the most obvious statement posted on this site). I'm ok with shrinking a bit and expanding after that.

---

I think NYC and LA saw growth over the past ten years, but those are the American Dream. They define big city. Miami grew a bit, but in reality Miami doesn't have that many people, somewhere between 400-500,000, yet everyone considers it a major city. New Orleans grew slightly, but they had a natural disaster unlike anything we have seen in modern history. Their population is between 300-400,000.

None of Ohio's major cities even have 400k and I believe have all shrunk.

Atlanta and Nashville, 500k.

Memphis and Indianapolis only grew because of annexing their suburbs, something I would never see happening in Metro Detroit. Detroit still has 713,000 people. In my personal opinion, the more people you can get to move towards the core of the city, and the better city services/transit/walkability become, the more quickly Detroit will rebound.

Imagine if 75% of the cities' population was within a few miles of Downtown. The police presence and response time would be so much better and provide a better quality of life. If these things can happen, business and people will flock to Detroit. The Downtown area has fantastic sky scrapers and architecture and will only get better with all of the ongoing renovations.

Chicago and Minneapolis are the only cities in the Midwest with more skyscrapers than Detroit. Midtown, with all of it's cultural institutions could basically become a mini Ann Arbor within a large city. You will have high rise living downtown, condos on the river, multi-family units, and nice spaced out neighborhoods. A bit of every type of housing people enjoy.

If Detroit can get it's people to the city center and improve it's services, IMO everything else would fall right into place.

Have you heard of the Boston Monkey? Have you heard of the Philly Freeze? Sorry I couldn't help myself...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpbollma

I think NYC and LA saw growth over the past ten years, but those are the American Dream. They define big city. Miami grew a bit, but in reality Miami doesn't have that many people, somewhere between 400-500,000, yet everyone considers it a major city. New Orleans grew slightly, but they had a natural disaster unlike anything we have seen in modern history. Their population is between 300-400,000.

None of Ohio's major cities even have 400k and I believe have all shrunk.

Atlanta and Nashville, 500k.

Memphis and Indianapolis only grew because of annexing their suburbs, something I would never see happening in Metro Detroit. Detroit still has 713,000 people. In my personal opinion, the more people you can get to move towards the core of the city, and the better city services/transit/walkability become, the more quickly Detroit will rebound.

Imagine if 75% of the cities' population was within a few miles of Downtown. The police presence and response time would be so much better and provide a better quality of life. If these things can happen, business and people will flock to Detroit. The Downtown area has fantastic sky scrapers and architecture and will only get better with all of the ongoing renovations.

Chicago and Minneapolis are the only cities in the Midwest with more skyscrapers than Detroit. Midtown, with all of it's cultural institutions could basically become a mini Ann Arbor within a large city. You will have high rise living downtown, condos on the river, multi-family units, and nice spaced out neighborhoods. A bit of every type of housing people enjoy.

If Detroit can get it's people to the city center and improve it's services, IMO everything else would fall right into place.

---

Why is the size of a single [[albeit predominant) municipality important. Consider the SMSA.