Detroit demolition plan

[Modusvivendi]

What's going on lately with Detroit's plan to demolish some 10,000 abandoned structures over the span of a few years? I read some articles about this a few years back but haven't seen much about it since then [[not living in Detroit or michigan myself).

I can understand the logic behind tearing down abandoned buildings and the desire to shrink the city into a more compact core that can be more efficiently managed. But, how does demolishing empty buildings do anything to shrink the city if there are some people left behind in neighboring properties? Are there actual plans to move residents from emptying areas into other neighborhoods that are intended to be saved? Do people think that Bing's plans will result in a more compact, functioning city?

I personally like the idea of consolidating the city into a more compact and functioning core, but I don't see how as a practical matter you get people to move from their current areas to what will be the nucleus of a restored city. That doesn't seem like a task the city govt is funded or competent to do, and even if it could I imagine the process could take decades.

[401don]

I don't think tearing down abandoned buildings had anything to do with shrinking the city. Empty buildings are dangerous, potential drug dens and fire hazards. As you suspect, there's no money to shrink the city at any gov't level.

[animatedmartian]

The idea was safety driven [[and for the most part image driven). Having whole blocks of neighborhoods blighted can't be good for any reason while at the same time makes it easy for people to point out how bad it is in Detroit.

Ya know, I was actually surprised that other cities have urban decay as well? But of course, they control the blight in those cities and don't let whole neighborhoods turn into overgrown prairies.

I think I remember glancing at an article that said Bing hasn't exactly hit his goal of demolitions per term or something like that, but it wouldn't hurt if some houses were knocked down quicker and empty fields were actually trimmed with low grass or blocked off completely.

[davewindsor]

What's going on lately with Detroit's plan to demolish some 10,000 abandoned structures over the span of a few years? I read some articles about this a few years back but haven't seen much about it since then [[not living in Detroit or michigan myself).

I can understand the logic behind tearing down abandoned buildings and the desire to shrink the city into a more compact core that can be more efficiently managed. But, how does demolishing empty buildings do anything to shrink the city if there are some people left behind in neighboring properties? Are there actual plans to move residents from emptying areas into other neighborhoods that are intended to be saved? Do people think that Bing's plans will result in a more compact, functioning city?

I personally like the idea of consolidating the city into a more compact and functioning core, but I don't see how as a practical matter you get people to move from their current areas to what will be the nucleus of a restored city. That doesn't seem like a task the city govt is funded or competent to do, and even if it could I imagine the process could take decades.

You're right. It's not practical. You won't get everyone in a neighbourhood to sell their property for a reasonable price to move so they could shut down/knock down all the buildings in that neighbourhood for any number of reasons such as it being a family house that they've grown emotionally attached to. And problem is compounded by land speculators like Michael Kelly http://detnews.com/article/20110203/...ing-of-Detroit that own 1,200 parcels of land in Detroit they bought at tax sales that will gouge the price up 1000% for their parcels if the city shows an interest in their parcels like the city planning to demolish and shut down a neighbourhood to consolidate the city into a smaller area. I remember someone saying that in Germany if you speculate by hoarding empty buildings the property taxes are a lot higher than if you maintain them as livable. Maybe that's something they should do here to get speculators to knock down blighted buildings on their own dime.

[CLAUDE G]

There is no point in even attempting to buy people out, because your going to have people who will refuse to move, and then you got the ones demanding top dollar for their property.

The city is better off jus demolishing the abandoned homes in these areas as they are abandoned, and wait till the last person moves out

[Dexlin]

The Neighborhood Stabilization Plan [[a federally funded program happening all around the United States that includes both demolition, rehab, and other housing needs) has nothing to do with Detroit's underdeveloped Detroit Works Project. The NSP, after hitting a snag in the middle of last year, is still very much active. I think Bing got nearly the 3,000 properties he had planned to bring down, last year, per the specs of this project.

The project is very detailed and on the city's website. They first have to inspect the properties and remove hazardous materials [[this is where the project originally hit a snag and was then corrected). They have to show exactly which houses they are tearing down, which they are rehabbing, and the few they are building.

The point of the NSP is to clean up blight [[demolition and rehab) thus bringing up property values of neighboring occupied houses, and stablizing existing, intact neighborhoods with infill [[the smallest part of this plan). Bing's ultimate goal is to get 10,000 down by 2014, not all of which will be taken down as part of the NSP. I'm not sure how far they are as of this month.

[ordinary]

I remember someone saying that in Germany if you speculate by hoarding empty buildings the property taxes are a lot higher than if you maintain them as livable. Maybe that's something they should do here to get speculators to knock down blighted buildings on their own dime.

That sounds like a decent plan but it couldn't be done retroactively. It might not be politically possible in the first place either.

[313rd]

A few years back Kwame had a list of about 25-30 dangerous buildings that were to be demoed immediately. One building that sticks out to me was the Don Miller Storage Co Building on West Fort Street. This building is seen when exiting the Ambassador Bridge. The last time I drove by the building was still standing.

Does anyone have a copy of that list? I'm wondering what percentage on the list were actually demoed?

[Modusvivendi]

Even if it's difficult or impossible to get every last person to move out of certain areas, getting rid of the abandoned structures will undoubtedly be an improvement. But there are ways I could imagine creating incentives for people to move out of areas slated for depopulation [[e.g., withdraw all city services from certain areas [[yes, I realize that may not be much!), increase property taxes there, or offer them comparable houses in stabilized neighborhoods). It will be interesting to see how Detroit handles this because I am not aware of any city in history that has had to deal with the depopulation issues that Detroit has. Shrinking Detroit might be a sad admission that the city won't be returning to its former glory ever or any time soon, but at least it comes to grips with where Detroit is now and how to best deal with its limitations.

[BasementBeat]

Detroit will become home to many streets with it's own "Nail House".

[old guy]

It will be interesting to see how Detroit handles this because I am not aware of any city in history that has had to deal with the depopulation issues that Detroit has.

There was an interesting segment on 60 minutes last night addressing this specific topic.
In Cleveland they've demolished 1000 homes this year and have plans to demolish an additional 20,000. Some of the pictures and video they showed were of neighborhoods similar to some of Detroit's with maybe six homes left standing in a ten block area. Quite a few similarities overall.

[old guy]

Oh yeah, the story and video.There Goes the Neighborhood - CBS News

[ghettopalmetto]

George Jackson would have had this shit banged-out five years ago. What's with the dilly-dallying? Can't you see that all these eyesores are discouraging investment?

I have mixed feelings on this. I understand the fire-hazard/crack den arguments. But that's a police issue, not a building issue. If Detroit ever rebounds, then it's going to be mad expensive, since you'll have to replenish the supply of housing stock. Most cities that have rebounded in the past two decades have done so with the help of an ample supply of cheap and available housing. Hell, you look at a place like Philadelphia, and a majority of the housing was constructed prior to 1930. What do you think Philly would look like today if they had spent limited resources bulldozing half the city in the past?

Oh boy! Let's tear down all the good old houses so that New Detroit can be covered with vinyl pieces of shit, just like the suburbs!

[mikeg19]

George Jackson would have had this shit banged-out five years ago. What's with the dilly-dallying? Can't you see that all these eyesores are discouraging investment?

I have mixed feelings on this. I understand the fire-hazard/crack den arguments. But that's a police issue, not a building issue. If Detroit ever rebounds, then it's going to be mad expensive, since you'll have to replenish the supply of housing stock. Most cities that have rebounded in the past two decades have done so with the help of an ample supply of cheap and available housing. Hell, you look at a place like Philadelphia, and a majority of the housing was constructed prior to 1930. What do you think Philly would look like today if they had spent limited resources bulldozing half the city in the past?

Oh boy! Let's tear down all the good old houses so that New Detroit can be covered with vinyl pieces of shit, just like the suburbs!

I hear where you're coming from, and I certainly agree that anything halfway viable should be saved. But on the other hand you can't leave up houses with no roof and all the plumbing ripped out, cracked foundations, burnt out or god knows what else. I'm led to believe that's part of the due diligence in determining what structures are being torn down.

[ghettopalmetto]

I hear where you're coming from, and I certainly agree that anything halfway viable should be saved. But on the other hand you can't leave up houses with no roof and all the plumbing ripped out, cracked foundations, burnt out or god knows what else. I'm led to believe that's part of the due diligence in determining what structures are being torn down.

If the "due diligence" for the residential demolitions is anything like the "due diligence" for the Madison-Lenox, Hudsons, or Lafayette Buildings, then Detroiters are being sold up the river again.

It's the same damned thing--spend precious public dollars on demolishing everything in sight, then hope and pray that some magical wizard comes along with a boatload of cash for "development". There's no plan beyond that.

[wolverine]

There is no point in even attempting to buy people out, because your going to have people who will refuse to move, and then you got the ones demanding top dollar for their property.

The city is better off jus demolishing the abandoned homes in these areas as they are abandoned, and wait till the last person moves out

I doubt "top dollar" is really all that high though. They'll get fair market value + some. And with the way housing values are falling, if the city really wants to claim land for public use / public benefit, they'll get it for a reasonable price. Buying up all the vacant houses and demolishing them though? People are correct, it would be costly and far beyond the city's resources. Heck...beyond the state's resources even.

[GoGrixdale]

It's the same damned thing--spend precious public dollars on demolishing everything in sight, then hope and pray that some magical wizard comes along with a boatload of cash for "development". There's no plan beyond that.

..and thats the really scary part.

Makes you wonder how heavy a hand is needed. There's no question that dangerous/open properties have to go first. Then possibly dwellings with blatant code violations followed by BSE inspections of any residential or comercial property with past due taxes or not homesteaded. Permits not pulled in 180 days verify condemnation.

Meanwhile collect official interest letters in the resulting brownfields. Preference should be given to adjoining residents for encouraging blot or community spaces.

I think you would see a significant number of pockets develop. Population will migrate organically. From there you can see a larger picture of community viability.

Trying to buy people out is the wrong move and will lead to nothing but resentment.