http://www.freep.com/article/2009052...+city+s+future?
Printable View
As a Detroit resident...i'm definitely open to an idea as such. With the condensed neighborhoods adds the opportunity to have a stronger sense of 'community'. By having the 'opportunity' areas spread all around the residential areas of the city it can allow every citizen to be within walking distance to get all their basic necessities. That can lead to a burst of unique 'mom and pop' shops opening up during an economic upturn.
Of course this is only if this plan works out and is accepted by the rest of the citizens.
I think this would be amazing for Detroit to do. Imagine it, schools, grocery stores, parks, etc. all in walking distance of the "villages". I disagree that people should just be uprooted, they should be able to stay in those areas, but new developments should not be built there. New development should be steered towards the centers, while green space and park development go towards the other areas, with more rural conditions allowed for the who wish to stay in the outer regions.
Just for kicks, here are key characteristics that should be incorporated into these "urban villages". As the article mentions, this will happen with or without our guidance, but without will be much worse for all of us;
- The neighborhood has a discernible center. This is often a square or a green and sometimes a busy or memorable street corner. A transit stop would be located at this center.
- Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the center, an average of roughly 1/4 mile or 1,320 feet [[0.4 km).
- There are a variety of dwelling types — usually houses, rowhouses, and apartments — so that younger and older people, singles, and families, the poor, and the wealthy may find places to live.
- At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and offices of sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of a household.
- A small ancillary building or garage apartment is permitted within the backyard of each house. It may be used as a rental unit or place to work [[for example, an office or craft workshop).
- An elementary school is close enough so that most children can walk from their home.
- There are small playgrounds accessible to every dwelling — not more than a tenth of a mile away.
- Streets within the neighborhood form a connected network, which disperses traffic by providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination.
- The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees. This slows traffic, creating an environment suitable for pedestrians and bicycles.
- Buildings in the neighborhood center are placed close to the street, creating a well-defined outdoor room.
- Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the street. Parking is relegated to the rear of buildings, usually accessed by alleys.
- Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities.
- The neighborhood is organized to be self-governing. A formal association debates and decides matters of maintenance, security, and physical change. Taxation is the responsibility of the larger community.
What has me shaking my head are these spots of new home construction in an absolutely obliterated neighborhood. The people moved out for a reason, yet developers are attracted to the cheap land and put up a dozen or so houses surrounded by nothing. I hope before anything, the city restricts development in emptied out areas and focuses it toward these prospective urban villages.
Wolverine, I agree. I see that development all over the eastside. Three to five homes in the middle of no where. ???????????
Detroitdad, a lot of what you described fits the Detroit I grew up in. We had the local stores, schools [[a strong PTA) and parks. Don't forget the trees, those beautiful Elms that lined our street creating wonderful arches.
I do agree that with all this vacant land we need real urban planning to capitalize on a new vision. Opportunity to create a new greener community type structure is do-able. Alas, over the last twenty years, we have been involved with visioning groups for neighborhoods, parks, historic preservation and riverfront development. It seems there is always grant money for visioning but none for doing.
One organization, a business redevelopment non profit has had at least five street scapes plans done at a cost each well over $100,000 dollars each [[grant funded) in the last 15 years. Not much has changed except for the worst. I am tired of plans and want to see action.
I grew up in what is now called East English Village. I still live here. In my youth, my friends ranged from here to what is now called Four Corners Village and Morningside. EEV is as viable as it is, because our association president is amazing. I would rather see these wonderful community activists compensated for holding our neighborhoods together than another dumb [[grant funded) study.
Better have an attraction or infrastructure in place before they build these. People aren't going to buy just because they are built. They need to try and offer something to the home buyer other than property. What would be unique to the village being built? That is the question that needs to be answered.
The villages are already built. They are the strong and vibrant neighborhoods of Detroit and they already have unique and distinct features that just need to be reinforced. Think Woodbridge, Midtown, Southwest Detroit, Indian Village, East English Village, Palmer Park, Green Acres, Etc. The Villages are already here they just need to be polished. Which could be achieved by focusing funds and resources to areas of stability while pushing development in these areas.
Let's see where this discussion goes....
So where would you guys say the proposed villages might be?
Ah...."Master Planned Communities"...with a twist! Community centers, strong homeowners associations, maybe even "gated" communities for areas with crime problems? What to do with significant architectural structures outside the developments? Move them? Secure them?
So many questions to be asked, but a great start. I'd love to be part of that somehow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitDad
It's unlikely they would take a form that I think a lot of people are imagining...[A distinct concentrated commercial center with dense housing around it].
I think the commercial areas would remain relatively linear along existing thoroughfares, but with episodic gaps of open space where abandonment was the highest. The residential areas would have to be broken down into groups. If you look at vacancy maps, and then were to survey housing conditions, you would actually find that most deteriorated properties and vacancies are quite clustered.
As 6nois mentioned, there's still many strong neighborhoods found throughout the city, but the areas that would be classified as "demolish completely" are really only large pockets within the entire urban fabric. This is pretty much the inverse of predictions that envision islands of density surrounded completely by greenspace.
Good point Wolverine. I think GOAT has it right. You'd maybe pick the best candidates based on location, current density, and what resources they already have [[an elementary school for example), and then try to add the other important small town elements to make an affective village destination that people would like to live in. Connecting the villages with transit, nice roads, and bike trails to things people want to live near would also be needed, things like jobs, downtown, hospitals, and Belle Isle. Tax incentives or property swaps might go a long way too.
The idea would be to strengthen the villages while the other areas continue to shrink, where as if nothing is done, the whole city will just continue emptying in random spots. It would of course improve quality of life for current Detroiters, in theory. The other areas could be slowly made into green space or more rural later on in the process. The urban rural areas would probablly never be totally abandoned.
As to what architecture should be saved; right now we're looking at huge loses if we allow this process to run it's course. The preservation community should definitely be involved in the process with the goal of determining what structures are most significant, and saving what can be saved. Some would be demolished in a village structure, but preservationists would also have more control over what goes and what stays.
All of this is going it happen, specifically on the areas off of Woodward. It's called TOD - Transit Oriented Development. It's the same thing as these "villages" - they pop up around train stations. Once the light rail is built, it will come naturally.
Detroit has lots of small urban villages. Chaldeantown, Islamic Warrendale, Yemeni Village, Mexicantown, Mexican Village, Bengali Town, Corktown, Greektown. I'm not going to count Asian Village and Africantown for they are not planned ethnic centers by generations of families.
Those 8 primary ethnic villages provide Detroit the cutural needs for our upside down ghettohoods and the folks who lived there keep up with the ghettohoods til the end.
I don't know about naturally. Most TODs I've read about have required some form of public subsidy, so I'm going to assume a plan for new development along Woodward would be relatively guided.Quote:
Originally Posted by dcmorrison12
This is something that needs to be seriously undertaken, and the sooner the better..
http://hypestyleshomebase.blogspot.c...nd-author.html
Villages would be collections of adjacent neighborhoods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
If "the city might one day resemble the English countryside, with distinct urban villages surrounded by farms, fields and meadows", they are going to have a tough time keeping out people that want to live there.
Forget about all these grandiose "urban village" Utopias. Detroit can't even tear down the thousands of homes and buildings that have been vacant for decades. Plus, who are going to live in these "villages"? The very people that you've relocated out of the distressed areas? So you're going to take people out of homes that they have not maintained and place them in brand new [[governmentally funded, I presume) homes that they are suddenly going to start taking care of?
All of this planning is for nought. Once large enough areas are naturally vacated, people will naturally start to move back in. Trying to force this with "social engineering" reveals an ignorance of past government "relocation" efforts.
Be careful what you wish for.
That is not true. People will not "naturally" move back into areas that have become urban prairie primarily because the infrastructure has been allowed to decay and there are typically reduced amenities. Yes I've seen examples where a developer has put up a couple dozen homes in the middle of some bombed out neighborhood. However check back 10 years down the road and see if these will still be filled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
I doubt the relocation would mimic the efforts of urban renewal in the 50's and 60's. This is more directed towards "the last man standing" where you find 1 single home within a 3 block area. If you can convince them to leave, you can remove all that unnecessary infrastructure and save money.
This isn't social engineering, it's a matter of saving money and managing decline more effectively. If you've ever agreed with the fact that Detroit has a problem maintaining services and infrastructure for a ghost city of 2 million, you'd know something has to be done. I'd like to hear your plan.
Mexicantown is doing for more better than all the recent ethnic villages in Detroit ghettohoods. The Hispanic and Mexican owned shops alonf W. Vernor HWY. is booming all the way down to Dearborn's Arabian Village. most of the gheoohoods in the southwest Detroit area is filled with Mexican/ Hispanic homeowners and they poised to expand to parts fo west side and Warrendale area. So for Detroit's Mexican/ Hispanic community represent 6% of the city's population up to 51,000 people by 2020 the population will increase to 90,000 people.