Has Detroit ever publicly asked for a regional housing development policy?

[iheartthed]

An op-ed in the Free Press today from an urban affairs professor at Wayne State says that the true cause of Detroit's de-population is what he refers to as Metro Detroit's "housing disassembly line":

They deal only with the symptoms of Detroit's depopulation and financial problems and not its root cause, a deep-seated regional malady I call the "housing disassembly line."

The housing disassembly line is a regional process that perpetually produces an excess supply of housing. In the tri-county metro area since 1950, developers built many more dwellings -- an average of more than 10,000 a year -- than the net growth in households required. Developers built this excess supply because their new suburban subdivisions could successfully compete against the older housing stock located in less-desirable neighborhoods located in jurisdictions like Detroit.

Almost an equivalent number of dwellings were rendered redundant by this excess supply. Most were undermaintained, vacated and eventually abandoned by their owners, because they could find no occupants. They blighted the landscape until eventually demolished, leaving a vacant parcel.

Like some giant conveyor belt, each time a new house is added to the suburban fringe all older houses built on the line drop in value, and one more house -- the least valuable one in the region but typically located in Detroit -- falls off the line because it is no longer worth owning.

http://www.freep.com/article/2013032...ional-solution

I guess that if anyone is truly interested in stopping the population decline in Detroit then this would be the obvious place to start. Did Detroit Works address this at all?

[renf]

So far as I know, there have been few efforts to discourage the building of new homes or apartments in the city of Detroit or the suburban ring. Indeed, most federal, state and local policies strongly encourage the building of new residential units. The metro area's population has hardly grown since 1970 but thousands of new homes and apartments have been built rendering many older units obsolete. The Census Bureau 2011 American Community Survey reported that 29 percent of the residential units in the city of Detroit were vacant. This does not include burned homes. Every candidate for mayor of Detroit has promised to raze abandoned homes but none have found the great financial resources needed to do that. I wonder if EFM Kevyn Orr has a strategy regarding this issue?

[Richard]

Did people leave because they were given a reason to fueling the blight?

DW works and other projects seem to be concentrateing on shrinking the footprint growth fuels revenue through jobs and increased tax base without trying to persay encourage residents to move from the suburbs.

Give a reason and a choice , take away that and you end up with what you have.

Mrs/Miss Riley is starting a series on how the city charter effects each neighborhood,it is important to learn and comprehend this to move the city forward .

[iheartthed]

Did people leave because they were given a reason to fueling the blight?

DW works and other projects seem to be concentrateing on shrinking the footprint growth fuels revenue through jobs and increased tax base without trying to persay encourage residents to move from the suburbs.

Give a reason and a choice , take away that and you end up with what you have.

Mrs/Miss Riley is starting a series on how the city charter effects each neighborhood,it is important to learn and comprehend this to move the city forward .

You should read the article.

[mwilbert]

There is no question that sprawl is a major issue in the region and for the city of Detroit itself. But Detroit might as well ask for a pink unicorn as for a regional housing policy; not only is there no consensus that sprawl is bad, but because of the way municipal finance works in Michigan, sprawl is financially helpful, at least temporarily, to the towns that permit it.

[Richard]

You should read the article.

I did read it, he is saying unchecked sprawl caused the blight of Detroit the city, granted it happened in cities across the country but yet Detroit remains 40 years behind progression , why?

In the last year in Tampa,Orlando and in S Fla.

Blackstone $800,000 per day buying homes for rental.
Silver Bay. $40 million buying 400 homes
Americian homes $80 million on 500 homes
Fundamental $10 million on 90 homes
American homes $ 8 million more then
100 homes again.

Detroit was what 4 mill for how many homes?

All homes range from 20k to 350


So sprawl is what is killing the city? Okay

[iheartthed]

I did read it, he is saying unchecked sprawl caused the blight of Detroit the city, granted it happened in cities across the country but yet Detroit remains 40 years behind progression , why?

In the last year in Tampa,Orlando and in S Fla.

Blackstone $800,000 per day buying homes for rental.
Silver Bay. $40 million buying 400 homes
Americian homes $80 million on 500 homes
Fundamental $10 million on 90 homes
American homes $ 8 million more then
100 homes again.

Detroit was what 4 mill for how many homes?

All homes range from 20k to 350


So sprawl is what is killing the city? Okay

Tampa Metro growth 2000-2010: +16.2%
Orlando Metro growth 2000-2010: +29.8%
Miami Metro growth 2000-2010: +11.1%
Detroit Metro growth 2000-2010: -3.5%

[Detroitnerd]

An op-ed in the Free Press today from an urban affairs professor at Wayne State says that the true cause of Detroit's de-population is what he refers to as Metro Detroit's "housing disassembly line": I guess that if anyone is truly interested in stopping the population decline in Detroit then this would be the obvious place to start. Did Detroit Works address this at all?

That's CRAZY! You're talking about shackling the job creators! We need sprawl because it's really called growth! What do you want? To live under communism that forces you to live in a GHETTO? *head explodes*

[Hermod]

That's CRAZY! You're talking about shackling the job creators! We need sprawl because it's really called growth! What do you want? To live under communism that forces you to live in a GHETTO? *head explodes*

Everyone should be forced by law to live downtown in Soviet style high-rise workers flats [[except, of course, the nomenklatura like Nerd who would have their own dachas).

[Detroitnerd]

A friend was telling me about one of her friends who grew up behind the Iron Curtain and had a fondness for what she called "filing cabinet buildings." I guess you can grow to like anything!

[Detroitnerd]

Getting back to the point, though, you'll notice that the only thing that stops the inexorable process of homebuilders overbuilding and sapping energy from the core is geography.

Manhattan is an island blessed with heavy bedrock for building up.

San Francisco is hemmed in by bay and mountains.

Pittsburgh has rugged terrain that limits developers' ability to build broad-brush environments on the outskirts.

[Shollin]

Getting back to the point, though, you'll notice that the only thing that stops the inexorable process of homebuilders overbuilding and sapping energy from the core is geography.

Manhattan is an island blessed with heavy bedrock for building up.

San Francisco is hemmed in by bay and mountains.

Pittsburgh has rugged terrain that limits developers' ability to build broad-brush environments on the outskirts.

San Francisco is one continuous sprawl all the way down to San Jose and back around to Oakland. The SF area has a population over 7 million while Detroit is about the same size as SF and has a metro population of 4.5 million. New York sprawls all the way out on Long Island and into Connecticut and New Jersey. New York is 8 million and the metro area is 19 million. That's twice the amount of people than the entire state of Michigan.

[Detroitnerd]

San Francisco is one continuous sprawl all the way down to San Jose and back around to Oakland. The SF area has a population over 7 million while Detroit is about the same size as SF and has a metro population of 4.5 million. New York sprawls all the way out on Long Island and into Connecticut and New Jersey. New York is 8 million and the metro area is 19 million. That's twice the amount of people than the entire state of Michigan.

The point of the article is something called a "housing disassembly line." Did you read the article? Did you even read the summary? Or are you so hurt and huffy that you just want to try to flame wherever I post?

If the land is rugged or has geographical limits, then the center has to build UP. As in Manhattan. And as in San Francisco. And as in Pittsburgh.

These extremely dense cities throw off so much economic heat that the surrounding areas develop and are linked to transit to carry workers into the central city. As a result, they become denser too.

The more rugged the surrounding territory, the more integrally transit is involved, the less likely the land near a city is going to be quarter-section swaths of Pulte homes and the more likely it will be historic development around transit. The denser the city center, the greater the geographical limits, the less likely it will build and maintain huge freeways to favor car commuters over transit commuters.

These areas tend to "hold together" better, and resist the abuses of greedy developers who want to make more money by building out instead of up, which leaves us all with a tremendous cost as a region.

Does that make sense?

Race! BOO!

[Richard]

Tampa Metro growth 2000-2010: +16.2%
Orlando Metro growth 2000-2010: +29.8%
Miami Metro growth 2000-2010: +11.1%
Detroit Metro growth 2000-2010: -3.5%

Most of that growth was fueled by Latin and South America
most of Orlando real estate was marketed directly in PR and most of those ereas resemble the country of origin and have become non English speaking,I moved to Orlando 1980 out of the service to raise my family in a safe inviroment,my children are now wanting to raise thier families elsewhere.

During the boom most of my middle and upper class Coustmers sold out and got out,I think in the next ten years there will be a reverse population shift and whatever city is prepared for it will Bennift from it.

I think Orlando ranks in the top on sprawl uncontrolled but mostly because big devolpment is a powerfull force as they do not make money unless they build.

[Shollin]

The point of the article is something called a "housing disassembly line." Did you read the article? Did you even read the summary? Or are you so hurt and huffy that you just want to try to flame wherever I post?

If the land is rugged or has geographical limits, then the center has to build UP. As in Manhattan. And as in San Francisco. And as in Pittsburgh.

These extremely dense cities throw off so much economic heat that the surrounding areas develop and are linked to transit to carry workers into the central city. As a result, they become denser too.

The more rugged the surrounding territory, the more integrally transit is involved, the less likely the land near a city is going to be quarter-section swaths of Pulte homes and the more likely it will be historic development around transit. The denser the city center, the greater the geographical limits, the less likely it will build and maintain huge freeways to favor car commuters over transit commuters.

These areas tend to "hold together" better, and resist the abuses of greedy developers who want to make more money by building out instead of up, which leaves us all with a tremendous cost as a region.

Does that make sense?

Race! BOO!

But it's not true. Both those cities you mentioned have huge sprawl. San Francisco especially. Have you not heard of Silicon Valley?

[Detroitnerd]

But it's not true. Both those cities you mentioned have huge sprawl. San Francisco especially. Have you not heard of Silicon Valley?

The point of the article is that in some places, the center does not hold, that for every house you build on the outskirts, the house in the center loses value.

My point is that there are other factors at play that make that more or less likely, such as geographic factors, which artificially inflate the price of the traditional center.

I'm hardly surprised that we have plenty of sprawl in America. When it is your national policy to have the smallest amount of people take up the largest amount of land, resources and consumption, you'll get your sprawl.

[Shollin]

The point of the article is that in some places, the center does not hold, that for every house you build on the outskirts, the house in the center loses value.

My point is that there are other factors at play that make that more or less likely, such as geographic factors, which artificially inflate the price of the traditional center.

I'm hardly surprised that we have plenty of sprawl in America. When it is your national policy to have the smallest amount of people take up the largest amount of land, resources and consumption, you'll get your sprawl.

I don't understand why you are forcing your ideals of life onto people. Telling people they should live in cities instead of having the home and yard that they want.

[Detroitnerd]

I don't understand why you are forcing your ideals of life onto people. Telling people they should live in cities instead of having the home and yard that they want.

What force do I have? Even if I had any ability to coerce people into moving, I don't think I'd use it. I oppose the use of eminent domain to move people. So I think across the board I'd say it's wrong to force people to move.

But if people want to live far away from the centers of population, they should be prepared to pay the costs of that. Isn't that a tenet of free market economics?

[Shollin]

What force do I have? Even if I had any ability to coerce people into moving, I don't think I'd use it. I oppose the use of eminent domain to move people. So I think across the board I'd say it's wrong to force people to move.

But if people want to live far away from the centers of population, they should be prepared to pay the costs of that. Isn't that a tenet of free market economics?

They did pay the cost. People living in the suburbs had to pay assessments to get their streets paved and had to pay to get hooked up to city water. I know you are going to start your nonsense that Detroit subsidized the entire suburbs to move away from the city.

[iheartthed]

Getting back to the point, though, you'll notice that the only thing that stops the inexorable process of homebuilders overbuilding and sapping energy from the core is geography.

Manhattan is an island blessed with heavy bedrock for building up.

San Francisco is hemmed in by bay and mountains.

Pittsburgh has rugged terrain that limits developers' ability to build broad-brush environments on the outskirts.

Ed Glaesser did a study in the late 1990s/early 2000s that linked the high housing costs in New York and California to the regulations on new housing construction. Even though a place like Manhattan does have geographic restrictions, it's actually the regulations on building in the region that push up the land values. Manhattan itself could overcome its geographic limitations by allowing more high rise construction but this is heavily opposed by home owners because of the potential to depress property values.

The high housing prices may pose a high bar for entry but it also keeps the core stable in a slow growing region like New York.

Thus, we can better compare the self-reported value of a house with the cost of building a home from scratch. When combined with the Means data, the American Housing Survey allows us to examine housing prices in a wide range of cities as well as the gap between these prices and new construction costs.
These data suggest that America can be divided into three
broad areas. First, there are a number of places where housing
is priced far below the cost of new construction. These areas are primarily central cities in the Northeast and the Midwest, such as Detroit and Philadelphia. In these places, which were the subject of our previous work [[Glaeser and Gyourko 2001),
there is almost no new growth. In general, these places had
significant housing price appreciation over the 1990s, but
values are still below construction costs.

In the second category of housing, in large areas of the
country, costs are quite close to the cost of new construction.
These places generally have robust growth on the edges of
cities, where land is quite cheap. These areas represent the bulk of American housing, although they seem to be somewhat
underrepresented in the AHS.

Finally, there is a third category of cities and suburbs where
the price of homes is much higher than the cost of new
construction; Manhattan and Palo Alto are two examples.
Indeed, many of these places are in California, but the 1990s
saw an increase in such areas in the Northeast and South as
well. Although there are a number of such places with
extremely expensive homes, they do not represent the norm for America.

...

As a whole, our paper concludes that America does not
uniformly face a housing affordability crisis. In the majority of
places, land costs are low [[or at least reasonable) and housing
prices are close to [[or below) the costs of new construction. In
the places where housing is quite expensive, building
restrictions appear to have created these high prices.

http://app.ny.frb.org/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf

[Detroitnerd]

They did pay the cost. People living in the suburbs had to pay assessments to get their streets paved and had to pay to get hooked up to city water. I know you are going to start your nonsense that Detroit subsidized the entire suburbs to move away from the city.

Well, let's leave out the question of how much Detroit subsidized the suburbs.

It costs more to provide services for people the less densely they're settled. It is more expensive in every way -- environmentally, in terms of consumption of energy, resources, providing emergency services, plowing, fire protection, etc., not to mention the eventual road expansions, freeway expansions, etc.

In order to be built in the first place, they required subsidies, including the GI Bill, the Interstate Highway Act, as well as the Housing Acts of 1947 and 1953.

They have continued to require generous subsidies from the federal government, and in the form of roads maintained by the state and county.

The metro Detroit suburbs have a system of parks for which Detroiters pay even though all the large ones are located miles away, and hard to access for a city in which only 2 out of 3 residents have a car.

Yes, the playing field is tilted -- tilted in favor of more expensive, less colorful suburban environments.

I'm not anti-suburbs. A city will always need its suburban environments. But the people who live there should be paying the total cost of living there. And the more widely the homes are dispersed and the more roads and sewers required, they should pay more.

Why not? Would you charge somebody to live in the 58th floor of a building -- requiring perhaps more than one elevator, and thousands of yards of pipe and cable, with scenic views -- the same to live in the first or second floor?

[Detroitnerd]

Ed Glaesser did a study in the late 1990s/early 2000s that linked the high housing costs in New York and California to the regulations on new housing construction. Even though a place like Manhattan does have geographic restrictions, it's actually the regulations on building in the region that push up the land values. Manhattan itself could overcome its geographic limitations by allowing more high rise construction but this is heavily opposed by home owners because of the potential to depress property values.

The high housing prices may pose a high bar for entry but it also keeps the core stable in a slow growing region like New York.

Interesting! Thanks!

[Shollin]

Well, let's leave out the question of how much Detroit subsidized the suburbs.

It costs more to provide services for people the less densely they're settled. It is more expensive in every way -- environmentally, in terms of consumption of energy, resources, providing emergency services, plowing, fire protection, etc., not to mention the eventual road expansions, freeway expansions, etc.

In order to be built in the first place, they required subsidies, including the GI Bill, the Interstate Highway Act, as well as the Housing Acts of 1947 and 1953.

They have continued to require generous subsidies from the federal government, and in the form of roads maintained by the state and county.

The metro Detroit suburbs have a system of parks for which Detroiters pay even though all the large ones are located miles away, and hard to access for a city in which only 2 out of 3 residents have a car.

Yes, the playing field is tilted -- tilted in favor of more expensive, less colorful suburban environments.

I'm not anti-suburbs. A city will always need its suburban environments. But the people who live there should be paying the total cost of living there. And the more widely the homes are dispersed and the more roads and sewers required, they should pay more.

Why not? Would you charge somebody to live in the 58th floor of a building -- requiring perhaps more than one elevator, and thousands of yards of pipe and cable, with scenic views -- the same to live in the first or second floor?

The problem here is much of Detroit itself was built the same time as a lot of the inner ring suburbs and things like GI Bill helped Detroit, especially neighborhoods north of 6 mile. You're talking about federal subsidies and acting as if Detroit funded all those subsidies. You're also missing the point that when these suburbs were built, you had to pay to hook to the city water. It wasn't offered for free. If you passed you kept your well.

[ghettopalmetto]

The point of the article is something called a "housing disassembly line." Did you read the article? Did you even read the summary? Or are you so hurt and huffy that you just want to try to flame wherever I post?

If the land is rugged or has geographical limits, then the center has to build UP. As in Manhattan. And as in San Francisco. And as in Pittsburgh.

These extremely dense cities throw off so much economic heat that the surrounding areas develop and are linked to transit to carry workers into the central city. As a result, they become denser too.

The more rugged the surrounding territory, the more integrally transit is involved, the less likely the land near a city is going to be quarter-section swaths of Pulte homes and the more likely it will be historic development around transit. The denser the city center, the greater the geographical limits, the less likely it will build and maintain huge freeways to favor car commuters over transit commuters.

These areas tend to "hold together" better, and resist the abuses of greedy developers who want to make more money by building out instead of up, which leaves us all with a tremendous cost as a region.

It appears that the apologists are out in full force on this thread already. How dare you offend their sensibilities by contradicting the only thing they know with facts.

If you ask a housing developer--or any developer, for that matter--they'd rather build up if they could. The biggest expenditures for a developer are 1) land and 2) construction costs. If you can fit more housing units on less land, you make more profit per unit. If you can build a few multi-story buildings instead of only single-family homes with basements, you expend less money and make more profit. Vast parking lots and endlessly curving, disorienting cul-de-sacs don't exactly generate revenue for the developers, either.

The problem isn't the developers, who have shown they can build traditional, walkable neighborhoods in places like New England, Portland, and the DC area, among others.

The problem is two-fold: 1) local zoning, which makes sprawl the only legal option for developers in most cases and 2) the state government, which is always ready to build new freeways, schools, utility lines, and safety services that make it all possible.

[Shollin]

It appears that the apologists are out in full force on this thread already. How dare you offend their sensibilities by contradicting the only thing they know with facts.

If you ask a housing developer--or any developer, for that matter--they'd rather build up if they could. The biggest expenditures for a developer are 1) land and 2) construction costs. If you can fit more housing units on less land, you make more profit per unit. If you can build a few multi-story buildings instead of only single-family homes with basements, you expend less money and make more profit.

The problem isn't the developers, who have shown they can build traditional, walkable neighborhoods in places like New England, Portland, and the DC area, among others.

The problem is two-fold: 1) local zoning, which makes sprawl the only legal option for developers in most cases and 2) the state government, which is always ready to build new freeways, schools, utility lines, and safety services that make it all possible.

Not everyone wants to live in an apartment. :fyi: