Explanation for all the decay?

Pulled this from the Freep...

I have never heard this explination before. Is it valid?
Awesomely empty

The second reason for Detroit's striking emptiness today is the quality of the city's housing stock.
Detroiters boasted for generations of having the highest percentage of homeownership of any big city. The ability for working-class families to buy their own homes -- and even to buy a fishing boat or a cottage Up North -- remained Detroit's proudest achievement throughout its Auto Century.
But vast numbers of those working-class and middle-class houses sprang up so quickly that there wasn't time or space for the painstaking construction and deliberate planning we see in, say, the neighboring Grosse Pointe communities.
Detroit, too, is a relatively humid place, nestled as it is alongside the Great Lakes, and the humidity is not kind to houses with wooden siding, especially when they don't get the upkeep they should.
Detroiters also say the city has a high water table, meaning you can dig down just a couple of feet in many places to strike water.
To be more precise, the glaciers that came through thousands of years ago left a dense layer of clay a couple of feet below the soil, so that rain and snowmelt doesn't percolate down easily. The water perches atop the surface of the clay, trapped there, so it's no surprise that wet basements are a problem throughout the city.
Combine the hasty wooden construction with a humid environment, then layer on poverty rates among the nation's worst, and the result is a city that loses many houses to decay. Metal strippers and arsonists worsen the problem many times over, but Detroit would be suffering a deteriorating housing stock even without them.
Without meaning to, civic leaders have contributed to the city's wide-open spaces by ambitiously demolishing many vacant structures in the expectation of new development, much of which never happens.


Read more: Being big led to big vacant prairies | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/2010091...#ixzz106spoVn2

Like all generalizations, there is some truth to it, but of course, there is much that doesn't fit the description of cheaply constructed small houses that melt with lack of maintenance. Many houses were built well, and yet deteriorated or were destroyed just the same when abandoned to the elements. You can find many neighborhoods where well built houses still stand, yet there are no buyers for these places. It isn't necessarily poverty that drives the emptiness.

We can't ignore fashion. We seem to be fashion mad. Not so long ago, Farmington was the fashionable place to move. Then West Bloomfield. Clinton Township. Novi. After a few years, fashion moves to the next place with NEW houses, NEW stores, NEW everything, and the fashionable people pick up and move to the newest fashion mecca.

Until we find a way to make moving to Detroit fashionable, we won't attract large numbers of people craving the latest.

ANY house needs regular maintenance. That includes scraping, painting, replacing rotted wood, upkeeping plumbing and electric lines, regular cleaning of HVAC units, whatever form they may take. There are 300 year old homes in New England [[with a climate and water table as bad as SE Michigan) that are positively immaculate today.

Don't blame nature. Blame lazy or uneducated homeownere [[uneducated in home maintenance needs, that is, not academia).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray1936

ANY house needs regular maintenance. That includes scraping, painting, replacing rotted wood, upkeeping plumbing and electric lines, regular cleaning of HVAC units, whatever form they may take. There are 300 year old homes in New England [[with a climate and water table as bad as SE Michigan) that are positively immaculate today.

Don't blame nature. Blame lazy or uneducated homeownere [[uneducated in home maintenance needs, that is, not academia).

---

True but...I have had some conversations with my mom about buying olders homes since I would like to purchase one. Mom made a comment to the effect well you dont want an older home, too much maintence and too much money. And she said at the same time said its such a shame that people just left those homes to go to waste. But her and her family moved out [[as I assume others did) from these older, larger homes due in part to upkeep [[being that they moved to New homes in the burbs), and expected the population that came behind to do more with less...I dont know but seems to me money [[or lack of it) trumps everthing in most cases.

Our first house was built in 1927. That house is solid as a rock. Beautiful plaster walls and ceilings, deep basement that was home to a monstrous gas gravity furnace that heated the place for a third the price of other homes. The house is still standing near Grand River and Greenfield, having survived a fire in one of the second floor bedrooms. There was nothing cheap about it or any of the houses in the neighborhood, yet we did have one that fell apart under the onslaught of a family of unruly kids with apparently absent parents.

As Ray said, ALL homes need maintenance. If you buy a brand new home, within five years you will be working on things that need repair and replacement.

Your mom is oversimplifying things, mommy. The primary benefit to a newer home over an older home is a matter of where you are in the life cycle of the house's systems; talk to anybody in Macomb Township with a house that's 15 years old.

Too many people think new houses are maintenance-free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastSider

Too many people think new houses are maintenance-free.

---

Yup. Had mine built in 2006, but after the two-year warranty [[for minor stuff) ran out, it's me and my toolbox to keep up with it. Change furnace filters regularly; touch up on paint here 'n there, already changed out a toilet flapper, and added sealer to the tile floor grout after cleaning. I'll not be stuck with any heavy stuff for some time, but the nickel and dime shit is always there to be done. So do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray1936

Yup. Had mine built in 2006, but after the two-year warranty [[for minor stuff) ran out, it's me and my toolbox to keep up with it. Change furnace filters regularly; touch up on paint here 'n there, already changed out a toilet flapper, and added sealer to the tile floor grout after cleaning. I'll not be stuck with any heavy stuff for some time, but the nickel and dime shit is always there to be done. So do it.

---

Exactly Ray. I honestly wouldn't mind throwing a coat of paint on my old wood porch [[if I had one)or replacing wood here or there. If you don't get all pissed off about it and take your time, it can be pretty relaxing. That's life with an old home...any home, you love her, that's why you bought her. Now nurture that lady so she keeps you warm and dry. I think, people refusing to live in a house longer than 4 years might have something to do with it as well.
Problem with new places is they're poorly built. Contractors slap'em up, cut corners, ignore code, jack up prices. I just don't trust most newer contractors.

I don't buy it. Brush Park had hundreds of brick homes [[even stone ones), much like Philadelphia's, built in the Richardsonian and Victorian styles from 1870's to 1900's. Detroit's Richardsonian collection of residences I believe can be counted on one hand, while in Philadelphia there remain many, and Detroit's Victorian representation, outside of Corktown [[many of which are wood frame), is left scattered in portions of the SW side and a handful of sparse beauties on the lower east side.

A drive down Bewick, St. Clair, Garland, or Cadillac [[hell, Lakewood, Newport, Eastlawn) has a few brick beauties left, many abandoned, from what were blocks upon blocks of superior craftsmanship, with mahogany trim, oak panelling, coved ceilings, fancy leaded windows and doors.

Sure, there are lots of wooden bungalows from the teens and 20's that are still in the suburbs, standing proudly, usually more expensive than their 40s and 50s counterparts, whereas in Detroit, they are slowly dying a block at a time.

I think the commentator [[an op-ed piece) could have easily shifted his concern from the moist /damp environs to the shitty up-keep of both slumlords [[owners who couldn't sell their houses when every body and business split), to the slum tenants who don't give a rat's ass.

The fact that so many homes are built out of wood in big cities like Cleveland, Detroit, and some parts of Southside and Westside Chicago are a real problem in a place where the seasons can be extreme. I'll see two houses lined up side by side, one all load bearing brick and the other wood...both abandoned for 20 years. The wood one is practically ready to collapse where the brick one looks like it's been vacated only a year ago.

Depending on how a wood home is clad, you might be able to reduce alot of maintenance. For example covering the wood siding with something longer lasting helps. I've seen some people completely rebuild their porches with synthetic materials as well. However, in the end, masonry buildings are going to require a lot less maintenance and cleaning. I've noticed 99% of new single family home construction in Chicago is conrete, brick, and steel. Occassionally I'll see some wood roof trusses, but the floors are all concrete precast hollowcore.....the stuff you see in highrise buildings. These buildings are going to be around a very long time, no matter how bad the neglect.

Most of Chicago's housing stock is brick, and has been, since they had a small fire there in 1879.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamtragedy

Most of Chicago's housing stock is brick, and has been, since they had a small fire there in 1879.

---

Anyone know if most of Detroits housing stock is/was wood or brick?

I think the real problem is that houses here have so little value. Where's the incentive to sink money into a worthless house in a declining neighborhood? Unless you have some sentimental attachment to the place, or have reason to believe that the low housing prices are temporary and the neighborhood will eventually rebound, there's probably a point at which it makes more rational sense to let the house go than to keep maintaining it. Detroit looks the way it does because more houses have reached that point here than in other places.

A well-built house will likely decay more slowly once abandoned, but that only matters if the housing market in the neighborhood improves at some point after it's abandoned. Otherwise, a house that wasn't economical to keep up in 1995 will be even less economical to rehab after 15 years of abandonment, even if it's still perfectly salvageable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

I think the real problem is that houses here have so little value. Where's the incentive to sink money into a worthless house in a declining neighborhood? Unless you have some sentimental attachment to the place, or have reason to believe that the low housing prices are temporary and the neighborhood will eventually rebound, there's probably a point at which it makes more rational sense to let the house go than to keep maintaining it. Detroit looks the way it does because more houses have reached that point here than in other places.

A well-built house will likely decay more slowly once abandoned, but that only matters if the housing market in the neighborhood improves at some point after it's abandoned. Otherwise, a house that wasn't economical to keep up in 1995 will be even less economical to rehab after 15 years of abandonment, even if it's still perfectly salvageable.

---

This is a great point.

As I see it, the problems with Detroit had to do with the type of, and reason for development beyond the central city, once the auto industry began to take flight. Detroit faced several big challenges in the past. Some of those challenges that Detroit faced included;

• The attitudes held by enough of the people who inhabited them [[homes viewed as investments).
• Issues of human nature, and how fragile the veneer of society is.
• A lack of culture and heritage. Many new residents still felt connected with their old homes, at the time.
• The fact that opportunity is mobile.
• The cost of maintaining old grand structures; it was cheaper to build new than to renovate.
• Population erosion in the face of overcrowded and industrial urban environments plagued by related problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamtragedy

Most of Chicago's housing stock is brick, and has been, since they had a small fire there in 1879.

---

Much of it is, but in many areas there are just as many wood houses as there are brick. Many of these cities, now neighborhoods carried on wood construction after the fire until they were annexed by Chicago. This is why 99.99% of the housing in the historic core are masonry and construction types become more diverse as you move out. Coincidentally, the highest concentrations of the city's wood housing stock is in the poorest neighborhoods. In many cases where abandonment is excessive, the brick multi-family 2 and 3 flats are left standing and occupied while the wood structures have long been demolished.

As far as how much brick housing stock is in Detroit, I'd add that what appears to be all brick may for the most part be wood. Many of the craftsman style houses are not load bearing brick like you'll find prevalent in other Midwest and eastern cities. The brick only acts as an veneer. Sometimes in neglect, you'll see it has fallen away from the structure in abandoned houses in Detroit.

While a wood frame structure with a brick exterior will probably outlast a home that is covered in wood siding, if water gets to the wood structure, the brick will do nothing to hold the house up as further damage is done.

Brick is susceptible to water damage as well, but it takes much longer for problems to become severe, and is unlikely to attract other problems like mold or insect infestations.


I remember doing a housing survey in the fringe areas of Detroit way back. At times, it was difficult to determine whether a brick home was abandoned or not. They had survived the years without maintenance well. The wood sided houses were a dead giveaway though.

Our first home was a lovely brick Colonial built in 1938 near Denby. We lived there 10 years. Put a lot of time and money into it. Moved when a job transfer came through.

I've driven past it twice only, in the past 25 years. The 1st time, the trim was painted hot pink. The second time, the privacy fence we installed was gone, the new garage we had built was gone, the landscaping we installed was gone! I shuddered to think what the interior must look like.

Our current home in Detroit is 102 years old. We inherited this home from a friend. I remember sitting on the porch with our now deceased friend when a large van pulled up filled with people that sat and stared at us. Turned out it was three generations of folk and the grandparents in the car said that the house was built by the wife's grandparents. She had such lively memories of the old home. We let them into the house for a tour. She cried with joy to see how lovely the home still was.

The old girl is a money pit but we love it so much. New roof, new furnace, updated plumbing etc cost a fortune. The style and fascade are hard to describe. Kind of a cross between Art & Crafts and Victorian. The wood trim on the house needs painting now and the garage should be replaced. We hope to get that done next year.

A home's value is location, location, location. This sweet old home is in Detroit. However, I am an impractical person. We will never get our money out of it but than we don't plan to sell.

As mentioned in other threads about 1/3rd of the block is urban praire. I am saddened that other stately old homes rotted away due to financials.

I agree with magnatomicflux - I wouldn't trade my 1924 house for anything built in the last 15 years, despite my endless weekend maintenance/upkeep projects. The "slap it up-contract to the lowest bidder" houses in the burbs [[any burbs in the US) are their own special kind of nightmare. And from my understanding - it doesn't matter if the house is brick or wood - once the roof goes, the house deterioration rate is accelerated exponentially . Can't build a roof with brick.

There is more to it than an "older house equals good, newer house equals crap".

Some years back, I was reading a book about home construction and it said there were cycles. I don't remember the exact dates [[I read it some years ago), but it was something like 1920-1925 were good houses while 1926 to 1929 were crap houses and the cycle just went on like that where periods of building solid houses alternate with "boom" periods of just slapping up anything to sell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintersmommy

Anyone know if most of Detroits housing stock is/was wood or brick?

---

most of the lower-end homes are wood frame. some don't even have concrete foundations. as you go upscale, there is more woodframe/brick construction.

Same is mostly true with Chicago SF units

Most of the decay is neglect!

I love the old style craftsman, victorians, etc. There's probably thousands of 'em rotting away unfortunately.

Look at Grosse Pointe or Royal Oak for example, there's a lot of those awesome older homes in great shape. Those cities just had residents who cared and could afford to keep them maintained.

I wonder if one could get a house built these days in the old styles? I think most are much prettier than the newer things I've seen, ha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave70

Look at Grosse Pointe or Royal Oak for example, there's a lot of those awesome older homes in great shape. Those cities just had residents who cared and could afford to keep them maintained.

---

Or housing values in those places have continued to justify putting money into repairs.

Quote:

---

I wonder if one could get a house built these days in the old styles? I think most are much prettier than the newer things I've seen, ha!

---

Why not just buy an old house, if that's what you want? There's no reason anyone should be getting houses built anywhere in SE Michigan right now, we've got way too many of the damn things already.

Anything would beat the massive garage taking up 91 percent of the front of the house look that has infested new home building for the past few decades. Also, in this climate NEVER EVER EVER build with stucco. It should be outlawed here. We do not live in Arizona and pastels suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

There is more to it than an "older house equals good, newer house equals crap".

Some years back, I was reading a book about home construction and it said there were cycles. I don't remember the exact dates [[I read it some years ago), but it was something like 1920-1925 were good houses while 1926 to 1929 were crap houses and the cycle just went on like that where periods of building solid houses alternate with "boom" periods of just slapping up anything to sell.

---

That makes sense.

I laughed one time reading an old book about Windsor. There was an article about a stately old home at Park and Ouellette being torn down in the mid 20's, with a group of old timers watching it's demise. They had noted how the demo crew was having a tough time tearing the old beams apart and whatnot. One of the old timers says something like "those boys will be at that house for a while yet. They just don't build houses like they used to" !!!!!!!!!!

That's the 1920's! Today...what is it that we say? " they don't build houses like they used to" !

A cycle indeed.

blackmath.....I like your thinking. Exactly how i feel.

Another thing that bothers me is people don't have front porches anymore. Who's your neighbour? I don't know.....I just get in my car in the garage and drive away since theres no sidewalk here in my burb. The I come home, straight into the garage and into my 12' high fenced backyard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

I think the real problem is that houses here have so little value. Where's the incentive to sink money into a worthless house in a declining neighborhood? Unless you have some sentimental attachment to the place, or have reason to believe that the low housing prices are temporary and the neighborhood will eventually rebound, there's probably a point at which it makes more rational sense to let the house go than to keep maintaining it. Detroit looks the way it does because more houses have reached that point here than in other places.

A well-built house will likely decay more slowly once abandoned, but that only matters if the housing market in the neighborhood improves at some point after it's abandoned. Otherwise, a house that wasn't economical to keep up in 1995 will be even less economical to rehab after 15 years of abandonment, even if it's still perfectly salvageable.

---

Yes, it's not the house, it's stuff other than the house, jeeze I'd give my eye teeth to have my kids grow up in the same kind of house my parents did, and believe-you-me I'd find plenty of time and money to keep things up, not a problem.

But as a parent, you can only control so many things, and the rest you have to suck up. So I'll keep my house up, till the point where that just isn't enough anymore, then I'm bailin'

The lack of front porches and the advent of attached garages that segregated people from their neighbors is one of the direct contributing factors to the sense of total apathetic isolation felt by the Gen Xers and Gen Yers, or whatever you want to call us.

Most people I know that are my age were never raised in a community around people who were different from what they were. They were never left to fend for themselves and come home when the streetlights came on. They never had a corner store they could walk to, or even a park that they could walk to as children. They were totally dependent on their parents and the car for everything so that even further isolated them from the world around them. I've always thought that a good portion of people in their 30s and below have been cheated socially by architecture, automobiles and parental paranoia.

I was lucky enough not to have ever lived a day in a soul sucking suburban neighborhood. Ive always lived in very old homes in the older parts of the city. The garage was in the back at the end of a long driveway up the side of the house. The home I grew up in was built in 1905 and its stood the test of time very well.

A house will last as long as the owners take care of it.

Same goes for me blackmath. Elsmere and Hanna, yellow house across from the substation circa 1910.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamtragedy

Most of Chicago's housing stock is brick, and has been, since they had a small fire there in 1879.

---

Most of St. Louis' buildings were made of brick after the fire of 1849. The law said they had to be built of materials that were less susceptible to fire. On top of that, St. Louis was a major brick-making area. So it made sense. Unfortunately bricks are also valuable, and thieves [[mostly on the North Side) are stealing the buildings brick-by-brick. The brick buildings do usually hold up well, though.

There's been recent stories of some of STL's buildings being burned then scrapped

I'll point out again there are still some differences in construction. A building with walls that are made of load bearing brick will outlast most that are wood framed with brick exteriors. The brick is supported by the wood structure, therefore in the event of neglect or a fire, the building is likely to collapse.

Many brush park homes are built of brick that is load bearing, which is why the shells of the structures have lasted for so long. But drive around and look at some 'brick homes' on the East Side that have been long abandoned. You'll find a pile of bricks on the ground next to the wood skeleton.

Windsor started building all our core buildings out of brick after our great fire as well. We lost nearly our entire buisness district, which didn't and still doesn't consist of much these days. Losing it twice I think would've killed Windsor.

Some the woodframe colonials is Windsor's neighborhood are compared to Detroit West and East side. But the residents are mostly white and well keep up. That what Detroit's neighborhoods should look like today.

Things don't last forever; everything needs to be maintained eventually.

With that being said all of the new homoes are going to need major overhauls in the next 15-20 years. So then what? Leave those to move to yet newer homes? Then the sprawl [[unaffordable) continues and your taxes go up.

The only thing I can say with old vs new is that newer houses are more energy efficient. But that isn't always the case either.

Regardless, an older may have more costs up front [[re-doing bad remodeling jobs or replacing wiring, HVAC etc) but new houses will have those eventually. At least with older homes they have character and uniqueness that is very hard to find in newer models.

Magnatomicflux. We have lost most of the buildings twice. 1st the great firre and the second through the 60s, 70s and 80s and even right up to today. There just isn't much left. I believe it is one reason our downtown suffers; there is no esthetics in the downtown. It is a mish-mash of mostly 60s and 70s dreary architecture with a piss-poor streetscape design done by one of the most incompetent urban planner around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmath

Anything would beat the massive garage taking up 91 percent of the front of the house look that has infested new home building for the past few decades. Also, in this climate NEVER EVER EVER build with stucco. It should be outlawed here. We do not live in Arizona and pastels suck.

---

If you are going to have an attached garage on a relatively narrow lot, you end up with much of the first floor facade being garage door [[form follows function). It is consumer demand, most people like having an attached garage [[seems like we had a recent thread about problems with detached garages on the rear property line).

I do mourn the elimination of large [[relatively) screened in front porches and 3' by 3' concrete stoops in the back of the house. Now you have the concrete stoop in the front and a very palatial deck or patio in the back.

Growing up in Detroit [[before AC), most folks sat out on their front porches in the evening and talked back and forth across the street while the kids ran around [[supervised) in the front yards. In the suburbs now, every family sits out along on their deck/patio and the front yard is just for show [[what isn't covered by the driveway apron).

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

the residents are mostly white

---

Windsor is far from mostly white. We haven't been that way for a very long time, and it has benefited this city in innumerable ways. Where someone's parents come from has nothing to do with how people keep up a neighborhood or not and race has nothing to do with it.

Over here it comes down to who owned homes vs rented homes. Renters are by their nature less permanent than owners obviously, so a lot of them don't think its their "job" to keep up the house. At the same time, many people I know who rent do an amazing job at keeping up their house.

I disagree with the argument that climate and geomorphology contributed to the decay of Detroit housing stock. The decline was due to lack of TLC, arson for various reasons, and neglect.

I can give some examples from Pickford.

The first house to go down was left in the care of a real estate agency by a man who left the area to become a drummer at a Vegas Casino. The agency forgot to winterize the home and the pipes busted. The resulting damage left the house an economic loss in a neighborhood where one would have been lucky to get $18,000 on a sale for a home in full repair and up to code. As the hulk sat empty; from time to time, siding removers would arrive in a van to remove siding. Even though threats or a call to police would shoe these maggots away, some more damage would be done. My late mother actually had success writing a letter to the COD to have this dump torn down in the late 1980s.

Another home to die was across the street. In this case, the man who owned it was busted by the DPD for chopping stolen cars in the extra large garage that sat on the lot. As he did hid stint in Jackson, the pipes froze and lifted this cracker box off of its foundation. I have old photos of this stored away in my attic.

Another home became a drop during the crack war era that plagued the street during the 1980s. I would watch a car come by, men go in and out quickly, and drive off. Later a dude would come along, go in the house, and come out with a package. According to word on the street, that one got fire bombed by someone who did not like crack dealing.

Google Pickford from Bentler to Trinity to see the results of this ongoing process. Our home, which did get TLC, was as sound as the day my father purchased it in 1954, when sold in 1991. In fact, the steam heating system was all original, with the exception of the pipes I helped him replace.

Blackmath, I think you are right when it comes to renters. The vast majority keep their places clean but most tend tolook at maintenance as something the owner should do.

I believe it is an owners job to maintain their rental places whether painting, cutting the grass etcx. But if I was a renter and the owner didn't do those things I would not hesitate to cut the grass myself or buy some cheap paint and paint a porch as best as I could.

Even not having much money, it doesn't cost much of anything to keep a yard clean, the grass cut. A can of paint is only $30.00

That is why I am in favour of having strict bylaws that are enforced with tickets directly to the owners. As it stands it is very cheap to receive these tickets. If a person complains about someones upkeep [[ei grass never cut) then a fine of $500 should go to the owner. If anothe charge is laid it should be $1000 and on and on...I am sure the slumlords wouldthink twice about leaving their property to rot.

A landlord will keep a property in A1 shape when maintaining or appreciating equity is a primary factor in the business model. A slumlord ignores equity and looks to income extraction as the primary benefit.

Let us assume that one can buy a cheap home in 48219 for about $8000 and can rent @ $400 per month. With a 70% rate of occupancy, that comes out to $2800 per year. If the slumlord can milk the property for about five years, then he or she has probably made a decent return on investment. Repairs subtract from earnings and will be largely ignored. A loss in equity can be used to offset capital gains in other ventures.


In the high end condos I rented, I made darn sure everything was repaired up to spec by me or someone I hired. The lame renter who felt he could hang pictures with cement anchors was sued for damages. In that economic model, appreciation of equity was paramount in that I ran them at a cash flow [[net income) loss to offset income from other ventures hoping to get a large capital gain upon sale. Which I did. The Pentagon City Mall, in Va drove up values in the area.


Until the day arrives in which real estate value appreciation trumps sucking blood out of a dead carcass, then there will just be more blight in Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pickford-Bentler

A landlord will keep a property in A1 shape when maintaining or appreciating equity is a primary factor in the business model. A slumlord ignores equity and looks to income extraction as the primary benefit.

---

A more polite way to put it is that he is engaged in "capital rescue"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

I think the real problem is that houses here have so little value. Where's the incentive to sink money into a worthless house in a declining neighborhood? Unless you have some sentimental attachment to the place, or have reason to believe that the low housing prices are temporary and the neighborhood will eventually rebound, there's probably a point at which it makes more rational sense to let the house go than to keep maintaining it. Detroit looks the way it does because more houses have reached that point here than in other places.

A well-built house will likely decay more slowly once abandoned, but that only matters if the housing market in the neighborhood improves at some point after it's abandoned. Otherwise, a house that wasn't economical to keep up in 1995 will be even less economical to rehab after 15 years of abandonment, even if it's still perfectly salvageable.

---

Yeah...

High homeownership rates are not indicative of a strong core city, nor can I find anything that suggests the two are positively related. However, there is some evidence that the two may be negatively related [[albeit probably loosely). If homeownership rates were indicative of a strong core, Detroit would be perhaps the greatest city in the country right now, since it has a very high homeownership rate among major cities.

According to the census bureau, these are the 2000 homeownership rates [[city only) for a few major cities that I selected semi-randomly [[median household income / median house value in parens):

New York - 30.2% [[$38,293 / $211,900)
Boston - 32.2% [[$38,625 / $132,400)
Miami* - 34.9% [[$23,483 / $120,100)
San Francisco - 35% [[$55,221 / $396,400)
Los Angeles - 38.6% [[$36,687 / $221,600)
Chicago - 43.8% [[$38,625 / $132,400)
Seattle - 48.4% [[$45,736 / $168,300)
Cleveland - 48.5% [[$25,928 / $72,100)
Pittsburgh - 52.1% [[$28,588 / $59,700)
Detroit - 54.9% [[$29,526 / $63,600)
Philadelphia - 59.3% [[$30,746 / $59,700)

Some points of note:

• Income varied far less than home price amongst these cities. The cheapest city price wise was 15% the most expensive city, yet the cheapest median income was 42% the highest income.
  
• Median income and median home price do appear to show a weak correlation, but the magnitude of change is much stronger among prices. For instance, NY and Boston both have similar median incomes and both are more expensive than Miami, but NY is over 40% more expensive than Miami while Boston is only 10% more expensive.
  
• High homeownership rates apparently correlate more with lower incomes. The four cities with the highest homeownership rates [[Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Philadelphia), were also among the cities with the lowest median incomes on this list.

Goat I absolutely agree with you. I think [[now don't quote me on this) that on this side of the river the city has bylaws that dictate how a property should be kept up. I think it's just like it is in your scenario - if someone calls the city about a derelict property the owner of that property gets fined and ordered to straighten out the issue within 30 or 60 days depending on the severity and number of complaints, etc.

However, a lot of properties in certain parts of this town are still in pretty rough shape. I used to live in a cheapo apartment in an older section of town. My landlord did absolutely nothing to keep up the property, so I took it upon myself to go over to my parents house and borrow the lawnmower to go back to my apartment to cut the grass, pull the weeds and rake some leaves. No big deal to me. As soon as the neighbors saw me doing this they asked me if the landlord was giving me a break in the rent for all the work I was doing. She wasn't, and I never asked for it and never got it either. If I'm going to live somewhere, it's gotta look nice. It's just a rule I have I suppose...

But, my neighbors reaction to what I was doing was telling of the attitude of some of the renters out there. If I don't get paid to do some simple maintenance, then forget it I'll let the property go to crap. Luckily, people like that are in the minority and most people take pride in where they live.

When I rented a single house, I always felt that lawn mowing and bush trimming was part of my responsibility. If something broke, I called the landlord and requested that he fix it. If I broke something, I had it fixed myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmath

The lack of front porches and the advent of attached garages that segregated people from their neighbors is one of the direct contributing factors to the sense of total apathetic isolation felt by the Gen Xers and Gen Yers, or whatever you want to call us.

Most people I know that are my age were never raised in a community around people who were different from what they were. They were never left to fend for themselves and come home when the streetlights came on. They never had a corner store they could walk to, or even a park that they could walk to as children. They were totally dependent on their parents and the car for everything so that even further isolated them from the world around them. I've always thought that a good portion of people in their 30s and below have been cheated socially by architecture, automobiles and parental paranoia.

I was lucky enough not to have ever lived a day in a soul sucking suburban neighborhood. Ive always lived in very old homes in the older parts of the city. The garage was in the back at the end of a long driveway up the side of the house. The home I grew up in was built in 1905 and its stood the test of time very well.

A house will last as long as the owners take care of it.

---

Geeze, not another "soul sucking suburban neighborhood" thread... it seems we have to disprove this nonsense every few months.... :mad:

As someone living in the "evil suburb" of St. Clair Shores near Harper... I have a nice 55 year old brick house with a nice front porch, a 2 garage at the back of the lot, and "conversant" neighbors who's kids walk to school in our cul-de-sac free neighborhood, and hang out at the corner store. No "soul sucking" attributes nearby as far as I can tell... :eek:

Wait!! I tell a lie... their kids do watch hours of cable TV and play their Nintendo's and X-Boxes... so yes... there is some "under 30" soul sucking going on right under our noses... ;)

Whole lotta suckin going on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gistok

Geeze, not another "soul sucking suburban neighborhood" thread... it seems we have to disprove this nonsense every few months.... :mad:

As someone living in the "evil suburb" of St. Clair Shores near Harper... I have a nice 55 year old brick house with a nice front porch, a 2 garage at the back of the lot, and "conversant" neighbors who's kids walk to school in our cul-de-sac free neighborhood, and hang out at the corner store. No "soul sucking" attributes nearby as far as I can tell... :eek:

Wait!! I tell a lie... their kids do watch hours of cable TV and play their Nintendo's and X-Boxes... so yes... there is some "under 30" soul sucking going on right under our noses... ;)

---

Note that the poster didn't say "all suburban neighborhoods are soul-sucking."

So yeah, TIME agrees with me in this article written earlier this month:

Quote:

---

Fifteen years ago, Andrew Oswald, a professor of economics at the University of Warwick in the U.K., was one of the first to note that places with high homeownership rates seemed to have high rates of unemployment as well. Indeed, some of the U.S. cities with the highest rates of homeownership have stagnant Rust Belt economies: Detroit; Allentown, Pa.; Rochester, N.Y.; Akron, Ohio

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...#ixzz10IX7nt6k

---

Yes, only the most soul suckiest are soul sucking - the ones with cul-de-sacs, fake lakes and meth labs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmath

Yes, only the most soul suckiest are soul sucking - the ones with cul-de-sacs, fake lakes and meth labs.

---

LOL... OK forgot about those meth labs... they are "soul sucking"... ;)

But then again... so are those X-Box....

Not to mention Shop Vacs :P

My recent trip to Cambridge, England helped my put things into perspective at least from an age point of view. To Detroiters, someting built in 1920 seems ancient and with god-like craftsmanship. The English view things the same way, but with structures that are from 1703. That shows that buildings can last if designed right and maintained, but the economy plays a direct role over the ability to maintain a home.

Hell, even the new middle-class construction in that part of England was so far above what we see way out in the burbs. The English haven't lost their desire for craftsmanship, even if it takes a little longer to build. Every new structure I walked into over there was built like a fortress. Can't the say the same for a new home in Oakland Township can ya?

Blackmath,
The bylaws are rarely if ever enforced. I can still call about a property 6 times a year and all the owner gets is a notice to do the maintenance or face a fine and the city will do it. What I suggest is that after the third complaint [[that is shown to be correct) they automatically get fined. All these absentee landlords do is wait for that notice before they do anything. This way it saves them money from having to do monthly upkeep. That has to stop!

Gistok, We aren't talking about 50 year old houses with porches. Look at the shitty raised ranches of the last 15 years. there is no front porch. In fact many don't even have a proper entrance as a person walks along a long brick wall that is a part of the garage...built in the front of the house. It sure isn't inviting when I go over to friends houses with this type of architecture and it sure isn't fun to sit in their garage either.

I find Detroit to be one of the most bricky cities in America. It's at least as bricky as Chicago, way more bricky than Cleveland. Huge sections of the central city, nw and ne Detroit are almost nothing but brick. Most of the near in suburbs are also mostly brick. Seattle one of the best preserved cities I've seen has very few brick homes. In the original post they mention the clay deposit which underlies Detroit. That is the reason there were so many brickyards all around Detroit. The sw side was full of them. Edgewater amusement park was built on a brickyard. The very large terracota colored bricks that you see all over Old Redford were produced there. On Lahser there are several all brick homes built with them and lots of foundations. They were about 4"x4"x12".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintersmommy

Anyone know if most of Detroits housing stock is/was wood or brick?

---

Well, there were many straw houses too. They were gone in a huff.

There is also a high correlation between people who have drank milk ate a hamburger with people who have od'd on heroin smoked dope and had a heart attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jtf1972

Well, there were many straw houses too. They were gone in a huff.

---

LOL. Well, in all fairness he could also mean as opposed to stone. Detroit doesn't have those probably because it's such a 'new' city. By that I mean most of it's growth happened after many other American cities had become fairly built out. Stone and heavy brick construction was not the norm.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/...fbe447fee9.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2686/...57ddea7059.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolverine

LOL. Well, in all fairness he could also mean as opposed to stone. Detroit doesn't have those probably because it's such a 'new' city. By that I mean most of it's growth happened after many other American cities had become fairly built out. Stone and heavy brick construction was not the norm.

---

Wholeheartedly disagree. My dad was a bricklayer and stone mason in Detroit from the 30s to the 80s. There was always work, when the weather cooperated. Much of what you see south of 8 Mile was built by European trained craftsmen and the children who learned from them [[like my Dad). Some of the brickwork in even the most modest lower-middle-class homes takes my breath away. Of course, there's was a lot of rudimentary, clap-trap housing, too, mostly wood-sided houses. Just takes common-sense to see what's what.

There were many brick manufacturers in Detroit in the early 20th Century; Colonial, Koeing and Puritan were the bigger ones, with many smaller specialty operations, many using old-world, European techniques.

I think it's a compound problem. #1: Detroit was a "boom town", a hundred years ago. #2: A lot of people came here, from Europe, from the south, wherever, for work. These people had no allegience for the D, besides work. That explains the population swell, @ the time. #3: The "Industrial Age" has /is coming to/ an end. Most, or all companies have moved else where, leaving the descendants of these original people, most of whom can't afford to move, to remain. #4: Some of the remaining generations of people turn to crime, to sustain. #5: There is a certain "cultural" frame of mind- ie " CAR JACKINGS, ROBBERIES, BREAK-INS, SHOOTINGS, etc. Nobody is gonna' help the D, if this bullshit continues- nobody! Blacks are 85 percent! Bill Cosby told you so. At least make the fucking effort!

you people are too much "kumbayah", tree hugging for me. This city is FUCKED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FerndaleDamon

Blacks are 85 percent! Bill Cosby told you so. At least make the fucking effort!

---

Huh?extracharactersforlowell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FerndaleDamon

you people are too much "kumbayah", tree hugging for me. This city is FUCKED.

---

What do you care, FerndaleDamon? We all know that political boundaries are 100% effective at isolating social problems in perpetuity, right? http://02d9656.netsoljsp.com/SarcMar...raphics/rk.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FerndaleDamon

you people are too much "kumbayah", tree hugging for me. This city is FUCKED.

---

What a coincidence! The Visigoths said the same thing about Rome! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FerndaleDamon

you people are too much "kumbayah", tree hugging for me. This city is FUCKED.

---

Take a long walk on a short pier. Back on topic, you can't beat wood for impact resistance, and strength-to-weight ratio. Grandpa Pingu built many a wood house in Detroit. However, one of them did burn down when Uncle Pingu played with matches while "home alone" with his little brother Papa Pingu. Was I going somewhere with this?

[quo`te=kathy2trips;191340]What a coincidence! The Visigoths said the same thing about Rome! :D[/quote]

Rome started going downhill when the loot/tribute from the provinces was no longer pouring into the city. Rome would have swiftly recovered from Alaric's sack if the money was still rolling in.

Rome's recovery during the Middle Ages and Renaissance was due to the Vatican sucking n money from all of the parishes of Europe [[all of the cardinals and church staff in the Vatican had "livings" provided by non-Italian parishes). Resentment of this state of affairs had much to do with getting the people behind the Protestant Reformation.

That must be the answer to the recovery of Detroit, just tax the hinterland to pay for the city.

Entropy. plain old entropy

Maybe it's "atrophy". In other words, if you don't use it, you lose it! Only people with jobs that provide discretionary income will turn it around. That will take a business- friendly community...with safe places for people to live. You want jobs? You MUST have business. Jobs = Business; Business = Jobs. Detroit needs to return to its entrepreneurial and industry roots to come back from the brink.

I see alot of explanations, here, and quite a few blaming primarily the current population of the city. What I have not seen taken note of is the fact that the Census Bureau has renter-occupied housing units at nearly 45% of all total housing, and over 20% of the total existing housing stock [[owner and renter occupied) empty. In other words, landlords and homeowners are at least as guilty as residents of owner-occupied housing in Detroit if not more so. The city needs to be cracking down on absentee landlords, but has neither the money nor the records to keep track of abandonment, and especially long-time abandonment.