Could this kind of thing work in Detroit?

Interesting article in the NY Times about Flint: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/22flint.html?ref=todayspaper.

I know that some Detroit leaders have talked about doing the same thing in Detroit. Could this kind of thing work in Detroit?

Although they have shared a common economic decline, there are numerous differences between Detroit and Flint [[e.g., size, suburban animosity, regional governance, comparative strength and success of Wayne and Genesee county landbanks) that would complicate any type of undertaking on that scale in Detroit. Mayor Cockrel's endorsement of the Hantz Group proposal is one step in this direction but it doesn't go as far as actually displacing residents from "lost cause" areas to areas that are more vibrant.

The late Marie Farrell-Donaldson, who was the City Ombudsman for Detroit at the time, proposed this maybe 22, 23 years ago, and was ridiculed. That it might be a good and viable idea doesn't mean anyone in Detroit will pay attention to it.

Detroit kind of has something like this in progress right now. Detroit is in the middle of a Neighborhood Stabilization Program [[NSP) that will target 9 areas of greatest upside/need. Depending on the targeted area, demolition/renovation will happen. Proposals for non-profits and for-profits are actually due today. Funding is though HUD. Detroit currently has secured around 40 million for the NSP with MSHDA promising another 40 million is Detroit spends it's first 40 million. This first round of funding for the NSP was based on need. There will be another round of funding through HUD based on performance though. Hopefully, the collective group of Detroit's Planning and Development [[who is running NSP) and developers do a great job so we can secure more funding.

More info on the NSP can be found here.
Planning & Development Department | City of Detroit | www.detroitmi.gov

No. __________

In order to save Detroit, shrinking some neighborhoods will be necessary. At the rate of neglect in some neighborhoods, it won't be long before the city will own all the property in those neighborhoods and can fence it in, cut off city services, and concentrate energies on viable neighborhoods.

A plan to shrink the city would require citizen relocation. obviously. My plan would require the city to build new homes along the major streets and offer citizens in those target areas discounts on the purchase price of these homes. Those who choose not to leave their homes would have one year to vacate before city services would be cut off. If they choose to stay where they are, they would have to fend for themselves. To avoid lawsuits, the city would not impose property taxes on these folks.

That's how it should be done. If not done, then those citizens remaining in the city will continue to have fewer and fewer city services. Eventually, everyone will have to fend for themselves.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...+vacated+areas

Hopefully, Bing is talking about redeveloping land that is already within or near the more vibrant areas of the city. If middle class citizens aren't moving to neighborhoods like the Villages, Boston-Edison, Rosedale Park, or Palmer Woods, I doubt they'll move to neighborhoods that are currently mostly vacant even if the City were to somehow "Birminghamnize" them, which, by the way, hasn't worked particularly well in Novi [[Grand River and Novi Rd. development) or Canton [[Cherry Hill Village).

Will it work in Flint?

No, I don't think this will work for Detroit unless you want to further destabilize it.

Wow, a lot to get to here.

It wouldn't be too hard to test a program like Flint's before implementing it on a large scale in Detroit. Buy up a couple of cheap, foreclosed houses in viable neighborhoods, find a block where there are only one or two houses still occupied [[the recent thread about robinwood st. off of Woodward comes to mind), have those residents move into the recently foreclosed homes, then bulldoze the block of abandoned houses. Rip up the street and turn the whole area into a new park or urban farm or what have you.

As for Bing's idea, I don't think it would work. People who left the city did so for things like better schools, less crime, etc. You have to answer those questions first.

Not to threadjack here, but I've noticed several times that people point to Novi as proof that you can't build a downtown type area, or "birminghamize" as somebody put it. Not quite... "Downtown" Novi failed mainly because they never actually built the damn thing. Seriously, one day when you're bored go to Novi and turn onto Main Street from Novi Rd. You'll see a nice little streetscape with trees and streetlights and parallel parking spots... with nothing but weeds on either side. It's bizarre; I always show people this who are new to the Novi area.

They can't develop it because city council basically wants "lots of antique stores and specialty shops," but nobody is behind it because that's downtown Northville, which is only 3 miles away. There was never a plan to build a liveable urban area. Crappy planning can kill anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heedus

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...+vacated+areas

Hopefully, Bing is talking about redeveloping land that is already within or near the more vibrant areas of the city. If middle class citizens aren't moving to neighborhoods like the Villages, Boston-Edison, Rosedale Park, or Palmer Woods, I doubt they'll move to neighborhoods that are currently mostly vacant even if the City were to somehow "Birminghamnize" them, which, by the way, hasn't worked particularly well in Novi [[Grand River and Novi Rd. development) or Canton [[Cherry Hill Village).

---

Jesus Christ. Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, we could have someone running this city who has some clue how successful cities work? Or at least someone who skimmed a Jane Jacobs book in college?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Will it work in Flint?

No, I don't think this will work for Detroit unless you want to further destabilize it.

---

Exactly.____

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detmich

Exactly.____

---

Why would it destablilize the city ?

You have areas in which the city has to provide services were there are practically no people to service and no tax base left.

Why can't the city isolate certain vacant areas and package it for future residential or commericial development ?