Today I see two interesting articles about Detroit land use:
1. In America Magazine, a weekly published by the Jesuits: http://www.americamagazine.org/conte...ticle_id=12358
2. In NY Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us...it.html?ref=us
Printable View
Today I see two interesting articles about Detroit land use:
1. In America Magazine, a weekly published by the Jesuits: http://www.americamagazine.org/conte...ticle_id=12358
2. In NY Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us...it.html?ref=us
When will they realize that this "shrink the city" business is bullshit? Why even bother shrinking the city if the regional governments won't implement a collaborative land use policy?
Exactly. The shrink the city thing is complete bullshit. What really needs to happen is shrink this entire region! In 50 years [[or is it 30?) we have stayed the same population but doubled in size geographically!Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Something needs to be done a regional scale. Maybe that means there needs to be laws in place to prevent new subdivision construction and incentives so that new development happens in the city and older suburbs. Some subdivisions might need to be removed or shrunk. I don't think having the suburbs stretch out to 30 mile is very sustainable, much less 20 mile. In fact, it is far more unsustainable than the so called unsustainable city that is 3 to 5 times dense than the outer ring. Whatever we do, we can't do nothing. Developers are itching to start construction on the latest greenfield development at 35 mile road, while Detroit and even inner-ring suburbs are loosing population.
Sounds inviting, doesn't it?Quote:
homestead sectors
Here's the telling thing:
A vacant block in Detroit is often platted with small enough lots to where you could fit 40 homes with backyards, producing community, urbanity, costs savings through the microclimate provided by windbreaks, and is precisely the sort of dense, walkable environment that younger folks are trending toward. It had "good bones" for dense development that uses less resources.
A block twice that size in Macomb Township could have just 20 homes, and hogs more roads, sewers, heating oil, and takes more time driving to get in and out, and is precisely the sort of environment we have an oversupply of.
So, naturally, you want to say that a block in Detroit has to be bulldozed, the street ripped up, and all services cut off.
Whereas a block of homes in Macomb Township gets subsidized.
Makes sense, yes?
I live in Detroit, have always lived in Detroit and, provided I continue to feel relatively secure, I plan to live in Detroit in the future- but having had a terrible, crazy, awful neighbor whose soverign property is only 10 feet away for more than a decade and having put up with neighborhood party noise and too-close car alarms at night, lack of mufflers, car horns sounding pick-ups at 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM for many years, I can see why less density is attractive to most Americans. I long for quiet that my Southwest Detroit neighborhood will never provide because of the streetscape. Perhaps young people don't mind the noise, but i think as they get older they will want more peace and quiet.
One way to deal with this is to buy every house on the block.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMAP
Referring to homestead sectors. The city would want to restructure its tax system to make larger pieces of land affordable. And how are they going to survive if they don't get city water? Can you dig a well in Detroit and trust that the water will be drinkable?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeannaM
http://detroitcommunitydevelopment.o...ework_2010.pdf
I don't get it. What's wrong with this shrinking of Detroit idea?
I do not think the issue is really whether to shrink the city or not, but rather how to address that shrinkage. Most people would agree that, no matter what we do, Detroit will continue to shrink in population for the short-term [[and probably mid-term, too). Also, most of the plans discussing "shrinkage" do not advocate reducing the total numbers of square miles in the city, and most people do not advocate literal shrinkage [[e.g., giving land to suburbs).
Rather, the debate really centers on how to address the fact that Detroit is shrinking. One approach would be to continue as we have been for the past 30 -40 years. It would be hard to sum this approach up in a sentence or two, but I would say that the approach has been characterized by a general lack of planning, an emphasis on large scale economic development, continuing difficulty with providing residents basic services, and increasing financial problems. This approach has not worked.
The question, then, is what an alternative approach would look like, and I think that is the real debate. I think it is reasonable to consider how the city can deliver services more efficiently, and I think part of this process involves a consideration of whether and how the city could provide incentives for people to live in more dense neighborhoods than they are now. Easy answers do not exist, and I am hoping to study these issues in the future because how we address the city's shrinkage will shape the Detroit of the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
Pretty simple, actually. The so-called "plan" to shrink the city is really not a plan at all. It is merely a euphemistic way of saying that Detroiters are fleeing in droves and we haven't a clue what to do about it.
- Lower property taxes below those of the suburbs. Eliminate special tax zones, and uniformly lower taxes over the whole city.
- Eliminate the city income tax.
- Give away city owned property for free to anyone who will build within a given time frame.
- Give away property to anyone who agrees to, and does, maintain it [[grass cutting, litter removal) for a given period of time.
- If anyone acquires a city-owned property that has an condemned building on it, the city will pay half the cost of demolition.
- Make the building/renovation permit process easier.
- Work with banks and housing contractors to make it easier for them to build new subdivisions within the city.
- Eliminate administrative hierarchies in city departments to put more workers on the street providing better service. [[Police, sanitation, schools, etc.)
Because it's not Detroit that is most inefficiently using the land.Quote:
Originally Posted by fryar
Since the 1970s, Metropolitan Detroit has grown by something like 50% in land area, but the overall population has grown by less than 100,000 people [[less than 2%). The regional sprawl is what needs to be contained, and that won't be accomplished by decommissioning sections of Detroit.
iheartthed, I do not think the two issues are mutually exclusive. It may be that the region needs to constrain growth as a whole, but Detroit as a city also needs to face certain realities, including the following:
1. People are fleeing the city for elsewhere in the region and outside the region.
2. The city was laid out for a population of nearly 2 million, whereas the population now is more like 800,000.
3. The city is nearly broke, and with people leaving and property values declining, the tax base continues to shrink. Without taking action, the cost of providing services will not correspondingly decrease.
4. It is unlikely in the near term that any kind of revenue sharing system with suburbs will be approved.
Given these realities, I think it is completely fair for the city to consider what it needs to do to "smartly shrink." Or perhaps it would be better to use Frank Popper's term, "Smart Decline." The city needs to take action to improve its structural finances, and also so that it can more effectively provide services to its residents.
That said, regional sprawl is something that can also be addressed, and I do not think one must pick one or the other.
Even if you give away free buildings and property who in the heck would like to live in a warzone; as many of these neighbourhoods have become?
What's with all the generalizations? Detroit is a war zone? I must have missed the war. My neighborhood is usually pretty quiet.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOAT
There is no reason not to address land use in Detroit even if the surrounding area remains oblivious. Certainly it would be better addressed at the regional level, but Detroit has a problem whether or not the metro believes it does.
"Shrinkage" doesn't really seem like a debatable issue. The city has shrunk, is shrinking, and will continue to shrink. The issue is how to address it. Some people [[including me) think that it would make sense to concentrate resources and people. Other people don't. Other people may think it would be desirable but not practical. But there aren't any people with magic sources of population and business growth that would eliminate future shrinkage, much less offset the shrinkage that has already occurred. So shrinkage will have to be dealt with, or as is traditional in the area, ignored.
The other side of the coin is developing a plan to use all that empty space to build a working city. Take it as a hypothetical and compare it and there are significant advantages to that. All it requires is a $10 billion Marshall Plan, a fraction of our aid to foreign countries every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Detroitnerd. Having been here a long time I get irritated by the wash-over Detroiters paint there city.
Once again, yes there are functioning sections of the city but for the most part Detroit's crime is almost 3rd world [[I have even posted facts in the past) and itis what people are moving away from...in droves.
It isn't whites moving from blacks anymore, it is people moving from crime, a dysfunctional school system, apathetic citizens and "leaders" who are absolutely clueless [[though this is changing slightly).
If we add in sprawl legislation that allows continous growth without continous population growth, hemmed in decaying inner suburbs then this is a recipe of how not to function at either the city or state level.
So instead of washing over the problems Detroit has how about coming together as citizens, as a city and move towards what it is you want from a city. Thenumber one thinig people want is safety first. Address that and Detroit is on it's way to becoming a decent city again.
While I do agree with you that Detroit's population is shrinking, and also agree that the city is in a dire financial situation, I do not agree that taking neighborhoods offline is the way to "fix" anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by cman710
In fact, I don't really see how the city saves money under this plan [[I guess it would help if the mayor would actually reveal what the plan is). Detroit would still be the same physical 140ish miles that cops would need to patrol. It would still have the same utilities and roads infrastructure to maintain. If there is some significant financial burden that can be lifted in a way other than having warm productive bodies filling the city streets then please enlighten me.
I think limiting regional sprawl is not only essential to fixing Detroit, but to preventing inner-ring suburban communities from deteriorating into Detroit-like states. There just wasn't much reason for Metro Detroit to double in geographic area, while having stagnant population growth, other than cheap land and subsidized services. Taking sections of Detroit off line while not addressing the bigger problem is just pouring a cup of water into a bucket with a gaping hole.
I am not whitewashing anything. People are leaving the city. People are leaving the suburbs. People are leaving the region. And the main factor driving that, in my opinion, is that the city, suburbs and surrounding farmland do not work together on any shared vision, and provide only one kind of environment while letting anything older than 50 years fall apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOAT
I think your post raises an interesting point, which is that I do think that proponents of shrinking plans need to demonstrate how their plans will save money, improve the urban fabric, and result in better provision of city services. It is all well and good to make proposals in theory, but I think there needs to be some data provided as well, and then rigorous analysis and testing of that data.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
It could be that by taking certain neighborhoods offline, the city could save a lot of money [[enough to make it worth it). And it could also be that trying to relocate people would cost so much that it outweighs any savings that the city would enjoy.
There are people studying these issues, and hopefully they will help provide the answers to some of these questions. Unfortunately, even if some good solutions exist, the political process will ensure that their adoption will be difficult.