Detroit News poll: Crime drives Detroiters out; 40% expect to leave in 5 years

[Shollin]

I know. It's amazing, isn't it? The level of denial around here is just astonishing. I just say, go ahead and believe it if you want to. When your kids turn 18, kiss 'em goodbye, because you're just never going to see them again.

Both of my children are over 18 now and neither have any desire to leave. One lives in Warren and the other lives in St Clair Shores. I guess I don't understand this walkability craze now. Don't these yuppies ever reproduce? What do they do with their children? It seemed like in the 90's places like Troy were the rave.

[poobert]

Both of my children are over 18 now and neither have any desire to leave. One lives in Warren and the other lives in St Clair Shores. I guess I don't understand this walkability craze now. Don't these yuppies ever reproduce? What do they do with their children? It seemed like in the 90's places like Troy were the rave.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Cavalier dismissal - denial, rather - that there is simply anything wrong with Metro Detroit besides, well, Detroit itself of course.

The dismissal, based on a personal anecdote [[look at how they come out of the woordwork), flies in the face of the seemingly obvious trends that have gone on here for years. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ETRO/904020403
Just because your kid lives in Metro Detroit doesn't mean we've bucked a demographic trend.

Cities have been around since time immemorial. The great cities of the world - New York, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Brussells, Berlin - have ALWAYS been "walkable." Walkability is not a "fad." It is how most of the world - and every human being before the 20th centry - gets places. Walking is good for your health and good for the environment. It save money on gas, which does not appear to be getting any cheaper. I think any reasonable person would recognize that.

On the other hand, this idea of driving everywhere that you so espouse has only been widespread for the past 60 years or so, in our giant suburb of a region, which is altogether looking pretty anemic right now. Yet, bafflingly, you suggest that walking to get somewhere is merely a trend, akin, to say, disco.

Not only do I not want to live in a region that finds Warren and Rochester to be the pinnacle of civilization, why would I want to live with people who feel that way? I want to live with like-minded people who like to walk places, value transit for so many obvious regions, and think cities and the environment are important. It's clear we're not going to agree on those things and that any attempt to change things in the deep void that is Michigan is fruitless. It is made up of Shollins and Hemrods, who elect Shollins and Hemrods. Geriatric and dismissive.

I'm leaving before I become old and complacent enough to think that a big screen TV in my Warren ranch house are what this world has to offer.

[Shollin]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Cavalier dismissal - denial, rather - that there is simply anything wrong with Metro Detroit besides, well, Detroit itself of course.

The dismissal, based on a personal anecdote [[look at how they come out of the woordwork), flies in the face of the seemingly obvious trends that have gone on here for years. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ETRO/904020403
Just because your kid lives in Metro Detroit doesn't mean we've bucked a demographic trend.

Cities have been around since time immemorial. The great cities of the world - New York, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Brussells, Berlin - have ALWAYS been "walkable." Walkability is not a "fad." It is how most of the world - and every human being before the 20th centry - gets places. Walking is good for your health and good for the environment. It save money on gas, which does not appear to be getting any cheaper. I think any reasonable person would recognize that.

On the other hand, this idea of driving everywhere that you so espouse has only been widespread for the past 60 years or so, in our giant suburb of a region, which is altogether looking pretty anemic right now. Yet, bafflingly, you suggest that walking to get somewhere is merely a trend, akin, to say, disco.

Not only do I not want to live in a region that finds Warren and Rochester to be the pinnacle of civilization, why would I want to live with people who feel that way? I want to live with like-minded people who like to walk places, value transit for so many obvious regions, and think cities and the environment are important. It's clear we're not going to agree on those things and that any attempt to change things in the deep void that is Michigan is fruitless. It is made up of Shollins and Hemrods, who elect Shollins and Hemrods. Geriatric and dismissive.

I'm leaving before I become old and complacent enough to think that a big screen TV in my Warren ranch house are what this world has to offer.

New York area has 19 million people. Basically 11 million people don't live in New York city. The metro New York region is growing faster than New York City. Chicago has had a steady decline in population yet a rapidly growing metro area. Suburban areas are growing at a faster pace than urban cities, yet, baffingly, you think people prefer dense urban cores.

[iheartthed]

New York area has 19 million people. Basically 11 million people don't live in New York city. The metro New York region is growing faster than New York City. Chicago has had a steady decline in population yet a rapidly growing metro area. Suburban areas are growing at a faster pace than urban cities, yet, baffingly, you think people prefer dense urban cores.

New York MSA only slightly outpaced NYC in growth between 2000-2010, 3.1% vs 2.1%. However, to look at it another way, roughly one third of the NY Metro area total growth [[+574,107 residents) occurred in New York City itself [[+166,845 residents).

Even if you take the Chicago, most of the new residents who are not native to Chicagoland become residents of Chicago city. Chicago suburbs have grown almost solely by attracting former city residents.

[Bham1982]

New York area has 19 million people. Basically 11 million people don't live in New York city. The metro New York region is growing faster than New York City.

I agree with your general points, but NYC is something of an exception.

I believe NYC proper is actually growing faster than the NYC metro area as a whole.

Also, a lot of suburban NYC is actually quite urban and walkable. There are tons of hard-core urban cities like Jersey City, Hoboken, Newark, Yonkers and the like, and many of the suburbs are semi-urban railroad suburbs [[pretty much anything on a rail line within an hour or so from Manhattan, so places like Scarsdale, Greenwich, Summit, Montclair, etc.).

But NYC area is an outlier. Generally speaking, most Americans live in auto-oriented suburban areas, and those areas appear to be growing the fastest in most parts of the country.

I will agree that there is something of a "walkability premium" though. Locally, I do notice that the older suburban parts of Oakland County seem to have more stable property values than the newer, less walkable parts.

Just anecdotally, it seem to me that places like Birmingham and Huntington Woods have kept their values better than places like Novi and Oakland Township. I find some of my neighboring sales shockingly high for what you get. Birmingham isn't all that.

[antongast]

I guess I don't understand this walkability craze now. Don't these yuppies ever reproduce? What do they do with their children?

I would think that children would benefit from walkability more than adults would. If you're an adult, assuming you can afford a car, the walkability issue mostly boils down to convenience and personal taste, but if you're a kid, living in an isolated area is a severe mobility constraint that could prevent you from doing lots of things you might otherwise be interested in doing.

[Shollin]

I would think that children would benefit from walkability more than adults would. If you're an adult, assuming you can afford a car, the walkability issue mostly boils down to convenience and personal taste, but if you're a kid, living in an isolated area is a severe mobility constraint that could prevent you from doing lots of things you might otherwise be interested in doing.

So kids are suppose to walk to bars and restaurants? When my kids were young they played with their friends at the park, rode bikes through the neighborhood, played sports, and hung out at Eastland Mall. Those poor kids. They should've lived in some cramped loft downtown with no park space to play in.

[antongast]

So kids are suppose to walk to bars and restaurants? When my kids were young they played with their friends at the park, rode bikes through the neighborhood, played sports, and hung out at Eastland Mall. Those poor kids. They should've lived in some cramped loft downtown with no park space to play in.

I don't think "walkable" means what you think it means.

[poobert]

I don't think "walkable" means what you think it means.

I'm done with him. He has only derision for people who want something besides living in Metro Detroit suburbs. Cities have parks. Cities have domiciles that aren't lofts. You can walk to places besides bars. You think you've got it made in Roseville? Fine, very happy for you. It is a free country. Your way of life is not the way for everyone, though.

And I sure as fuck want better for my kids than having to hang out at Eastland Mall.

[Hermod]

And I sure as fuck want better for my kids than having to hang out at Eastland Mall.

Like loiter at the local gas station and bum money?

Like hang out in front of the local liquor store with the hoodrats?

[gameguy56]

Like loiter at the local gas station and bum money?

Like hang out in front of the local liquor store with the hoodrats?

Seriously, what the fuck is this shit? Have you ever been to a major city outside of Detroit? Right, the only thing to do in chicago or new york is to loiter in front of the liquor store.

[Detroitnerd]

Like loiter at the local gas station and bum money?

Like hang out in front of the local liquor store with the hoodrats?

Lewis Mumford once suggested that in areas where actual cities were supplanted with "urbanoid tissue" typified by car-only transport and low density, people would cease to remember what cities are, or why they exist. Perhaps they would think they were mere agglomerations of people assembled tightly to do certain tasks, like make automobiles. Perhaps they would think they were ghettoes to fill poor people with. Perhaps they would think they were Potemkin Villages set up to sate their leaders' lust for glory. Perhaps they would think they were relics of a bygone age before the "magic carpet for all mankind" freed us from its bounds.

Of course, none of this is true. Cities existed for thousands of years because they were on a human scale, much like a lot of old Detroit. Also because they were at the crossings of trade routes, as Detroit undeniably is.

It is this combination of density and centrality that creates enduring cities. They are at the crossroads, where goods and skilled workers pass through. The people who live there don't need to travel far to get a wide assortment of goods for daily life. Eastern Market is a good example of that, for instance.

But we have sacrificed all that for the "urbanoid tissue" Mumford wrote about. Areas that were developed without much thought or history but just because we could develop them, thanks to the car. Places like Warren, for instance, where, for the most part, instead of walking to the local central market one has to get in one's car and drive to procure the necessities of life.

Notice how in the classic city, one walks to the market and goes shopping on foot. That is because a broad variety of goods and services are packed into a dense location that gives all people access to them.

Notice how in the "urbanoid" area, one must drive to various stores that are dispersed over the region in order to procure the broad variety of goods and services one needs, because they are not packed into a dense location. And, since one must drive, not all people have equal access to them.

On top of all this, we must remember that no cities were organized like Warren until the 1920s. Before then, transit and walkability were considered a normal part of city planning. The last 90 years have, essentially, been a big experiment.

Now, try to gaze 100 years into the future. Look at someplace like Detroit, with good bones, right on the river, accessible to commerce, an excellent crossing point on the Great Lakes, rich with 400 years of history. Even if gas were $20 a gallon, Detroit would likely be inhabited.

Now, similarly, look a century into the future at someplace like south Warren. With history going back 150 years, designed at a time gas was 35 cents a gallon, with wide roads that are hard to maintain, no natural vistas, inaccessible to commerce ...

Tell me where the hood rats are going to be hanging out then?

[Shollin]

I'm done with him. He has only derision for people who want something besides living in Metro Detroit suburbs. Cities have parks. Cities have domiciles that aren't lofts. You can walk to places besides bars. You think you've got it made in Roseville? Fine, very happy for you. It is a free country. Your way of life is not the way for everyone, though.

And I sure as fuck want better for my kids than having to hang out at Eastland Mall.

We all know you're better than the people that live in Macomb county. You're happy living in a city? Your way of life is not the way for everyone, yet I keep hearing this narrative that Detroit needs walkable streets. Detroit needs jobs. All these cities that have thriving urban cores have some sort of economic base. I don't live in Roseville. Now you're acting as if I said all cities don't have parks. I'm talking about Detroit. Back in the late 80's and early 90's when my kids were growing up, hanging out malls was the thing to do. Eastland also wasn't the mess it is now, and I sure as fuck want better for my kids then Detroit. I want better than the worst public schools in the nation, one of the highest crime rates among cities in a developed country, neglected parks, and having to worry about my kids being recruited by neighborhood gangs.

[Detroitnerd]

I sure as fuck want better for my kids then Detroit. I want better than the worst public schools in the nation, one of the highest crime rates among cities in a developed country, neglected parks, and having to worry about my kids being recruited by neighborhood gangs.

Note the snarling hostility, the anger, the defensiveness, the almost irrational hatred. No wonder people who treasure and love cities leave this area. They listen to people like this rant on and on unchallenged and say, "Welp, I'm not going to waste my energy on a region that is so hostile to the kind of possibilities I want to explore."

And so Detroit remains disinvested, which doesn't help the metropolitan economy, and makes its "nice" areas seem dated and tawdry, and people in suburban decampments feel looked down upon and vent their rage [[which, psychologically speaking, is a kind of shame in disguise) which in turn causes more people to look at the landscape and leave, which leaves Detroit disinvested, which doesn't help ...