State to Unveil Detroit Demolition Plans

[jpbollma]

We need to let go of the idea that detached, single-family dwellings are the 'American Dream'. Even in good times, there's much to be said about dense, attached dwellings. And in tough times -- there's a lot to be said.

Totally agreed. I think one good thing for Detroit would be to put multi-family units on the old Tiger stadium site with a nice park.

Also, knock over the old Brewster buildings and do the same there. Offer different pricing for units [[do not make them all low income) and put a stipulation in the lease that along with your security deposit you must also from $425 per year [[or split this up and attach to the monthly payments). This would go towards private security to compliment the police. some units could be more basic with the usual cheaper apartment carpet and linoleum, with better units available with tile, wood floor, and granite type features.

Lafayette Park has a mixed income, nice park areas, and private security and this model seems to work well in that area. Why not expand this idea?

[1953]

Detroit has pursued a strategy of ruralizing itself for fifty years; it doesn't seem to be working. We have to devise new strategies for attracting people and investment if we wish to remain a city at all. Vacant lots in an impoverished place reduce street life vitality and make it easier to commit crime. It is imperative that we stop creating vacant places. Let us pursue a policy of growth and development, not surrender.

[Shollin]

Detroit has pursued a strategy of ruralizing itself for fifty years; it doesn't seem to be working. We have to devise new strategies for attracting people and investment if we wish to remain a city at all. Vacant lots in an impoverished place reduce street life vitality and make it easier to commit crime. It is imperative that we stop creating vacant places. Let us pursue a policy of growth and development, not surrender.

Detroit is not going to be 1.8 million again. Detroit is still denser than cities such as Phoenix and Houston. The population needs to be spread out. People on this forum are hung up on density and walkability. Detroit is not that place anymore.

[jpbollma]

Right. In order to fill this empty space up, you would need A. People who actually want to be there, and B. a shit ton of money. With the expansion of the Greenway connecting Midtown-Downtown-New Center-Eastern Market-Woodbridge, the people mover, bussing, and possible M1 rail I think the core of the city can still be that walkable area everyone wants it to be. Also, with so much apartment building in Downtown/Midtown I believe this will be quite a dense area in the next ten years. Maybe once Downtown, Midtown,New Center, Corktown, Woodbridge, Lafayette Park, Eastern Market, Rivertown are filled to capacity THEN people will be more apt to venture out more. Other viable neighborhoods like Palmer Woods, Rosedale, THe Villages, Boston-Edison ect should definitely be up kept and possibly try to attract some small delis or other small businesses to those areas.

[Richard]

Detroit is not going to be 1.8 million again. Detroit is still denser than cities such as Phoenix and Houston. The population needs to be spread out. People on this forum are hung up on density and walkability. Detroit is not that place anymore.

I do not see why not,you can say never and convince yourself that it will never happen and guaranteed it will never happen .

In all fairness it is not only the people on this forum hung up on walk-ability and density it is just the way every city is going , given a choice and a nice day would you rather walk 6 blocks to a restaurant or drive?

[Detroitdave]

When Kwame was Mayor, didn't the city have to return funds to the Federal government, because they did not spend the money for demolition work as it was intended for?

IIRC the reason the city did not use the funds was because they did not want to hire white contractors [[They wanted "minority contractors").

So when the city claims it costs eight grand I don't trust them, they are not as interested in clearing out dangerous structures,as they are in spending the money in the "right places".

If the city was interested in clearing out dangerous buildings, they never would have stalled the process during Kwame's time in office.

The talk about "protecting" Belle Isle, really shows nothing has changed.

I'm glad you brought up "protecting " belle isle. who was "protecting" Belle isle for the last 40 years ? The city allowed it to be run into the ground !
I noticed on the news Jo anna watson [[sp) not certain that's her name I'm not as familiar with then names of the city council, was protesting .
Belle isle is not for rent, not for loan and not for lease for 99 years .
and I thought to my self , well WTF? it's been run into the ground for 40 years if we let the folks running it the way it's been run to 40 years nothing will be left!
I mean what do they want? the city cant even keep the light on , cops on the streets , EMS up and running . They should be looking for help to help save the "jewel" of Detroit .
We are asking for help for the DIA , I don't hear they saying the same thing about that .
Like I've said before , if you can't afford $12.00 a year , a dollar a month !!!!
then what are you doing with your money ?
most people waste that on smoking, gas for the car, drinking, drinking coffee, ect
Stop being obstructive and do what's right for the city ! Letting Belle isle die is not helping !
Speramus Meliora and Resurget Cineribus, meaning "We hope for better things" and "It will rise from the ashes,"

[Detroitdave]

Detroit has pursued a strategy of ruralizing itself for fifty years; it doesn't seem to be working. We have to devise new strategies for attracting people and investment if we wish to remain a city at all. Vacant lots in an impoverished place reduce street life vitality and make it easier to commit crime. It is imperative that we stop creating vacant places. Let us pursue a policy of growth and development, not surrender.

Because of the WRONG approach for 50 years ! City hall has been going way for 50 years ! we need a complete overhaul of city hall ! They have been too obstructive for 50 years ! that's why the state had for FINALLY step in !
What, are we going to wait another 50 years ?
ENOUGH !,ENOUGH ,ENOUGH ENOUGH OF THIS "our" city crap ! who wants to live in a city like that ? "our" city is a mess and without some help and guidance there is no way out !
We need adults at city hall !, have you seen some of the council meetings ? mind blowing !

Speramus Meliora and Resurget Cineribus, meaning "We hope for better things" and "It will rise from the ashes,"

[PeachLaser]

A keyword that popped out at me is the term "equity investment advisor". I think Detroit has an understanding of how those folks work... socialize the risks and privatize the profit.

[corktownyuppie]

Detroit is not going to be 1.8 million again. Detroit is still denser than cities such as Phoenix and Houston. The population needs to be spread out. People on this forum are hung up on density and walkability. Detroit is not that place anymore.

I don't quite agree. Density is an aggregate number. I do agree that Detroit is not going to be 1.8MM in population again. But I do think you can still have density and walkability.

What that means is that areas of the city will be mostly green space and other areas will be dense, and other areas will be somewhere between.

If a neighborhood block is missing 70% of its homes due to blight, then the long term plan needs to eventually be to raze the remaining homes and turn that block into a park.

There will be plenty of density as well as plenty of ruralization and everything in between. What we need is for everyone to accept that it's going to be some of all 3 and then a unified plan to get through the transition.

[royce]

Over the years forumers have come up with good ideas and sometimes not so good ideas on how to fix the the abandonment problem in Detroit, myself included. What overwhemingly goes through my mind when dealing with these problems is the idea concerning "city rights" vs. "individual rights."

The city is the entity that initially gave out plots of land to private individuals. However, now due to the ruling about eminent domain, the city virtually has no say on what it can do with its land. On the other hand, individual property owners want to feel assured that the city [[as a governmental body) won't just take their property just because the city wants it. Also, what should happen when a property owner abandones their property? Sure there are legal steps the city can take, but what to do with the abandoned property in the mean time? If the city doesn't tear down the property, then the citizens in the neighborhood get mad at the city. Is it the city's fault or the property owners fault? Who should foot the bill for tearing down the Packard plant?

This ultimately gets back to the age old argument about what's good for the individual versus what's good for society. For instance, their are some people who are happy and content with living on a block that has three houses on it versus 50 because it means less noise and perhaps less crime. There are others that feel that for the good of the city, these people need to move into more densely populated areas. What's the right decision?

In general, it is becoming basically impossible to get people to agree on anything in this country, including Detroit. Only a disaster of some kind [[think Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans) will force the hands of Detroiters to make the best decisions for all of Detroit. Even then, there will be disagreements, arguments, road blocks, barriers, backlash, protests, lawsuits, etc....What to do? What to do?

[dmike76]

I don't understand why 1.8 million people should be the only measuring stick for Detroit to be a successful, healty city again. A lot of people seem to be so focused on that 1.8 million number, but there are plenty of cities that are successful without that many people. Detroit's recovery should begin with denser housing and business that has better city services. Let's shoot for that first. Also, I think we should stop focusing on what Detroit WAS. It will never be that incarnation of Detroit again. I think history is important, but how about a new, different, reinvented Detroit? Yes, please.

[Richard]

You can say that the city may never return to the 1.8 million figure again so lets downsize,but cities are built on future growth plans not future ways to shrink.

If they take the same amount of energy and devote it to a plan that involves past ,present and future I personally think that things may go a bit easier.

If you think in here and now and we need to do this now because that is what happening today you are not necessarily thinking about the future,all the decisions being made now that will effect the city for many years to come are being made based on no foundation and that is scary and desperate which is never a good time to make decisions.

There have all ways been many ways and available funds to stabilize and improve neighborhoods the problem has been the lack of representation for those neighborhoods so they have suffered and now the solution is to downsize and further demolish what is left.This is being reactive verses proactive.

If you look at last years budget you can see what neighborhoods had representation and received funds,they did not receive those funds automatically they fought for them but they are now the strongest areas in the city,this is why say instance Corktown is strong verses other areas,its because the people got together and created their own representation.

So instead of saying to a neighborhood okay you have no representation you are SOL and need to move while we demolish everything standing,would it not been easier to just represent? This is what the basis is of the new charter it puts somebody in the neighborhoods that will represent and fight for a better neighborhood,funds were returned because there was nobody in charge that had the knowledge of how they work. That is the problem when you place friends and family in the city.

So all of the decisions made today and under today's thoughts should be critically looked at, Detroit has everything in place all ready to become a major player in this world again flash decisions made are long term affecting decisions.

You can hang on to the past because that is what made you what you are today,Detroits past is the most important aspect there is nothing wrong in building on that for a future Detroit but there are not enough funds in the world to wipe the city out and say okay we are going to start over now.

The buildings are representatives of those who made the city the world class city she once was you cannot find those in such a collection anywhere else,that is an asset to the city every time you take one down to make a parking lot you are slowly chipping away,multiply that one by one through the years and soon you have erased the history that built you.

Any other city would have built a massive tourist trade around the history of the automobile and the city that it built,the music industry,theater, the war contributions , this is where it all happened and started that is something to brag about and that is why so many hang on to the past Detroit and no other city can claim that. It is called pride and when that is gone that is when you move elsewhere.

So now it is your job to put people in place in your city government that will take what your forefathers built for you blood sweat and tears and help you carry Detroit into the future.

As a city you do not destroy the past you respect it and use it to build the future making your contribution for those to come in the future,you can retreat or you can say it all stops and it is time to move foreword ,get some leadership with a proactive plan and start building a future Detroit until then you are just going to bulldoze the city until nothing is left,you will have no choice and end up with nothing to offer to future residents so why would they move there,give them a reason and all of this other stuff will become secondary.

Who cares about Chicago or any other city you have your own identity build on that.

[dmike76]

Well, I never said that we have to 'destroy' the past. I've read a bunch of Detroit history books, hell, my dad played for Motown Records. He was also a National Guardsman during the 67 riots so I've got some first hand accounts of the D's history and I appreciate all of it. I think that our history separates us from so many other cities in the country. My impression is that there are a lot of 'oh we were the industrial power of the country and we need to get there again, and we need to have nearly 2 million people, too' type of thinking out there, and IMO that will help doom us to failure. We can't just be the Motor City anymore, we have to be 'Tech City', 'Urban Farm' city or whatever other industry we can make. Detroit cannot continue in the direction that it's been going for decades. It has to go in a new direction. I don't mind having a city of 500,000 if the city can pay its bills and provide services. If they can do that, then Detroit could grow back to 1.8 million. I'm merely asking why that has to be the primary goal of making Detroit great again?

I completely agree that decisions we make today are going to affect the future. In fact this is probably the most critical time for Detroit in recent history. However, the decisions cannot just be the old status quo that has put us in this mess. That is the history that needs to be forgotten.

[dmike76]

Also, I didn't say it would never return to that number, I'm just saying that for me it doesn't have to.

[1953]

Returning to a population of 1.8 million is a great goal, because healthy cities don't usually shrink over time. Also, walkability is an admirable objective for lots of reasons, not just population growth.

[Shollin]

Returning to a population of 1.8 million is a great goal, because healthy cities don't usually shrink over time. Also, walkability is an admirable objective for lots of reasons, not just population growth.

Is Chicago not a healthy city? What about Philadelphia, Boston, or Washington DC?

[Richard]

Well, I never said that we have to 'destroy' the past. I've read a bunch of Detroit history books, hell, my dad played for Motown Records. He was also a National Guardsman during the 67 riots so I've got some first hand accounts of the D's history and I appreciate all of it. I think that our history separates us from so many other cities in the country. My impression is that there are a lot of 'oh we were the industrial power of the country and we need to get there again, and we need to have nearly 2 million people, too' type of thinking out there, and IMO that will help doom us to failure. We can't just be the Motor City anymore, we have to be 'Tech City', 'Urban Farm' city or whatever other industry we can make. Detroit cannot continue in the direction that it's been going for decades. It has to go in a new direction. I don't mind having a city of 500,000 if the city can pay its bills and provide services. If they can do that, then Detroit could grow back to 1.8 million. I'm merely asking why that has to be the primary goal of making Detroit great again?

I completely agree that decisions we make today are going to affect the future. In fact this is probably the most critical time for Detroit in recent history. However, the decisions cannot just be the old status quo that has put us in this mess. That is the history that needs to be forgotten.

See we are on the same page,but I am not saying that it needs to be at the 1.8 million mark tomorrow,just while going into the future do not write off the possibility because the infrastructure which is the most costly is already there so if the possibility comes in the future it can be done cost effectively.

You are correct the city needs to have a more diverse economy but speaking from direct experience,that is being stifled by the city and state,they do not want the industrial aspect anymore while other cities are embracing and profiting from it.That is why I am here ,which is to find out if it is going to take a generation of retraining for the city workforce to become entirely tech based,currently you have a city and state writing off an entire generation of workforce or throwing them under the bus so to speak to build this new Detroit is it worth it?

Keep everything on the table old,new,the past present and the future,because somebody or something does not factor in our train of thought we have a tendency to forget the faces behind what we are doing and snap decisions affect live people.

It is an easy decision for me personally if the city maintains that they do not want a manufacturing base anymore then so be it,but it would be unfair to make that decision now based on what I have learned of the currant administration or pass judgement on the residents without a proactive involved government in place.I am not the only one recession or not companies are formed and relocated everyday.Lots of unnecessary lost opportunities for a struggling city are happening currently.

[dmike76]

Actually, if you look at recent population numbers of 'healthy cities' like Chicago, a lot of them have decreased, just not to the degree of Detroit. Shrinking isn't healthy, so Detroit is definitely not either [[maybe the most obvious statement posted on this site). I'm ok with shrinking a bit and expanding after that.

[jpbollma]

Actually, if you look at recent population numbers of 'healthy cities' like Chicago, a lot of them have decreased, just not to the degree of Detroit. Shrinking isn't healthy, so Detroit is definitely not either [[maybe the most obvious statement posted on this site). I'm ok with shrinking a bit and expanding after that.

I think NYC and LA saw growth over the past ten years, but those are the American Dream. They define big city. Miami grew a bit, but in reality Miami doesn't have that many people, somewhere between 400-500,000, yet everyone considers it a major city. New Orleans grew slightly, but they had a natural disaster unlike anything we have seen in modern history. Their population is between 300-400,000.

None of Ohio's major cities even have 400k and I believe have all shrunk.

Atlanta and Nashville, 500k.

Memphis and Indianapolis only grew because of annexing their suburbs, something I would never see happening in Metro Detroit. Detroit still has 713,000 people. In my personal opinion, the more people you can get to move towards the core of the city, and the better city services/transit/walkability become, the more quickly Detroit will rebound.

Imagine if 75% of the cities' population was within a few miles of Downtown. The police presence and response time would be so much better and provide a better quality of life. If these things can happen, business and people will flock to Detroit. The Downtown area has fantastic sky scrapers and architecture and will only get better with all of the ongoing renovations.

Chicago and Minneapolis are the only cities in the Midwest with more skyscrapers than Detroit. Midtown, with all of it's cultural institutions could basically become a mini Ann Arbor within a large city. You will have high rise living downtown, condos on the river, multi-family units, and nice spaced out neighborhoods. A bit of every type of housing people enjoy.

If Detroit can get it's people to the city center and improve it's services, IMO everything else would fall right into place.

[scottn55]

Have you heard of the Boston Monkey? Have you heard of the Philly Freeze? Sorry I couldn't help myself...

[Wesley Mouch]

I think NYC and LA saw growth over the past ten years, but those are the American Dream. They define big city. Miami grew a bit, but in reality Miami doesn't have that many people, somewhere between 400-500,000, yet everyone considers it a major city. New Orleans grew slightly, but they had a natural disaster unlike anything we have seen in modern history. Their population is between 300-400,000.

None of Ohio's major cities even have 400k and I believe have all shrunk.

Atlanta and Nashville, 500k.

Memphis and Indianapolis only grew because of annexing their suburbs, something I would never see happening in Metro Detroit. Detroit still has 713,000 people. In my personal opinion, the more people you can get to move towards the core of the city, and the better city services/transit/walkability become, the more quickly Detroit will rebound.

Imagine if 75% of the cities' population was within a few miles of Downtown. The police presence and response time would be so much better and provide a better quality of life. If these things can happen, business and people will flock to Detroit. The Downtown area has fantastic sky scrapers and architecture and will only get better with all of the ongoing renovations.

Chicago and Minneapolis are the only cities in the Midwest with more skyscrapers than Detroit. Midtown, with all of it's cultural institutions could basically become a mini Ann Arbor within a large city. You will have high rise living downtown, condos on the river, multi-family units, and nice spaced out neighborhoods. A bit of every type of housing people enjoy.

If Detroit can get it's people to the city center and improve it's services, IMO everything else would fall right into place.

Why is the size of a single [[albeit predominant) municipality important. Consider the SMSA.