Dead Metro Detroit Malls *Universal, Livonia and Summit Place Mall pictures included*

[DetroitDad]

The link to the 50 is: http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/

Here's the whole thing in a nutshell. Green building isn't that hard. Superinsulating a building at construction R-60 ceiling/roof , R-20 in the walls, and the edges of the slab too, will give you a building that you can heat just from solar alone, with lighting adding heat as well. Cooling costs much lower too. It's really not all about place, or transportation.

It's the renovation costs that are really driving up the costs for green building in the city and inner ring. Retrofoam, that blow in foam fill, sounds easiest for an older building. That will give you a substantial R value, but the costs may be prohibitive for some. That's only in houses, though. You can't do this on cinder block or concrete structures.

I disagree, being spread out is less energy efficient than having residences closer together, mainly in the Winter. It's also not really just about how their building, it's also about what their building and that their building at all in an over-saturated market. A large home or a mcmansion in suburbia isn't really energy efficient, since it usually excessively meets the needs of the average family. You could be using the same new construction as city or suburban infill with brownstones, duplexes, apartment buildings, row houses, or just a smaller home.

You bring up some excellent points. I still argue that this new construction is simply a waste in and of itself. Just trying to look at things from your point of view, I think you are looking at it as moving from old inefficiency to new, I'm looking at it as adding onto the old, as we have built this stuff with no need. So the average family has a new big house, and a smaller house back home in the city center that needs to be demolished. This is an issue because people have still been trying to repeat this cycle by moving even further out, although that may stop with the current economy.

Having checked out the site you mentioned, I decided to check out the source of the data. 2000 census data is a little dated. The census blocks I checked had income levels significantly below the median. That explains the lack of cars, they can't afford them. Remember, the devil himself can quote scripture and use it for his own purposes

Well, my point was that a car could be a luxury in some of these areas, so that makes some sense. Generally, I think the state of the American Middle Class isn't so great, something's got to give, and I think the most logical thing to go is car culture. Many, many more people are not going to be able to afford multiple cars anymore. It is going to be very hard to sustain car culture, although I'm sure many people will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

It is possible that the suburbs could be retrofitted and become sustainable, or that new communities could be built, but I can't see that happening with this new economy.

[LodgeDodger]

Your blathering and pointless posts along with your [[and Johnlodge's)
need to school house and nitpick grammatical typos as a means of trying to make your opponents look bad shows that I shouldn't even be wasting my time with you. You talk about making points, but make few yourself. Do tell me how age alone is a contributing factor oh wise sage. However, I think iheartthed said it very well, and the age of a community has little to do with sustainability if that community was built on an unsustainable suburban model.

Clearly, in this case age does not seem to necessarily mean one is knowledgeable or wise.

Actually, your use of "it's" as a possessive isn't a typo--it's a mechanical error. My English language skills are far from perfect, yet they've served me quite well throughout my years as a newspaper reporter and freelancer. People do not take a person seriously if they cannot use the basic constructs of the language. It's similar to learning programming code if you wish to become a programmer. You have to know the tools of the trade in order to be respected. In this day and age, with all the software available to those who are writing-challenged, any sort of mechanical errors within a posting smacks of a lazy writer.

My posts have been fact-oriented, not some fantasy ramblings. You can post whatever crap you wish about sustainability studies, it doesn't mean a thing to me. Quoting others is merely hearsay as far as I'm concerned.

John Lodge's posts are always clear and intelligent. He's never rambled on this board, ever.

Your comments are uncalled for and show your immaturity.

[LodgeDodger]

Lodgedodger has wisdom you will not achieve for many years, if ever. The fact you can't recognize, or deny it because she disagrees with you, says a lot.

----------------------------
*hug*

[Stosh]

I disagree, being spread out is less energy efficient than having residences closer together, mainly in the Winter. It's also not really just about how their building, it's also about what their building and that their building at all in an over-saturated market. A large home or a mcmansion in suburbia isn't really energy efficient, since it usually excessively meets the needs of the average family. You could be using the same new construction as city or suburban infill with brownstones, duplexes, apartment buildings, row houses, or just a smaller home.

You always, always over characterize these suburban homes as McMansions. Why? Do I criticize the Boston Edison district? Do you even realize how god-awful inefficient those homes are? Indian Village? Even Palmer Woods? Those "McMansions" are proably three times more energy efficient than anything in those neighborhoods, or for your average home or flat, being built with more energy efficient appliances, mechanicals, and insulation
Why people want newer homes lies within these premises. Attraction of new people to Detroit would probably depend on these factors, as well as improved public safety. And a better tax structure. And better government.

It is possible that the suburbs could be retrofitted and become sustainable, or that new communities could be built, but I can't see that happening with this new economy.

I think that the economy will play a part, but political will for sustainable policies are far better. Pressing your local officials, wherever you live, needs to be done,

[DetroitDad]

You always, always over characterize these suburban homes as McMansions. Why? Do I criticize the Boston Edison district? Do you even realize how god-awful inefficient those homes are? Indian Village? Even Palmer Woods? Those "McMansions" are proably three times more energy efficient than anything in those neighborhoods, or for your average home or flat, being built with more energy efficient appliances, mechanicals, and insulation
Why people want newer homes lies within these premises. Attraction of new people to Detroit would probably depend on these factors, as well as improved public safety. And a better tax structure. And better government.

From what I've seen first hand, a large number of the homes being built in the exurbs are mcmansions, not duplexes or flats.

I think that the economy will play a part, but political will for sustainable policies are far better. Pressing your local officials, wherever you live, needs to be done,

Agreed, and anything is possible. However, many of these people are the same ones who ran from the problems in the inner cities, and I find it hard to believe they just will not try to do it again. We will see just how far we've come soon enough, I guess.

[DetroitDad]

Actually, your use of "it's" as a possessive isn't a typo--it's a mechanical error. My English language skills are far from perfect, yet they've served me quite well throughout my years as a newspaper reporter and freelancer. People do not take a person seriously if they cannot use the basic constructs of the language. It's similar to learning programming code if you wish to become a programmer. You have to know the tools of the trade in order to be respected. In this day and age, with all the software available to those who are writing-challenged, any sort of mechanical errors within a posting smacks of a lazy writer.

My posts have been fact-oriented, not some fantasy ramblings. You can post whatever crap you wish about sustainability studies, it doesn't mean a thing to me. Quoting others is merely hearsay as far as I'm concerned.

John Lodge's posts are always clear and intelligent. He's never rambled on this board, ever.

Your comments are uncalled for and show your immaturity.

Lodgedodger, what happened to you? You switched from being likable and giving out hugs to even those who opposed you, to giving out jeers and calling people out. Where did the old Lodgedodger go?

its sad, but I guess you had to show your true colors eventually, eh?

[alsodave]

its sad, but I guess you had to show your true colors eventually, eh?

If by "true colors" you mean that her infinite patience with you and your various online personas has turned out to be finite, then you are correct. That you have burned out that patience says more about you than her.

[jcole]

Originally Posted by DetroitDad
Your blathering and pointless posts along with your [[and Johnlodge's)
need to school house and nitpick grammatical typos as a means of trying to make your opponents look bad shows that I shouldn't even be wasting my time with you. You talk about making points, but make few yourself. Do tell me how age alone is a contributing factor oh wise sage. However, I think iheartthed said it very well, and the age of a community has little to do with sustainability if that community was built on an unsustainable suburban model.

Clearly, in this case age does not seem to necessarily mean one is knowledgeable or wise.

You are the one who attacked her for correcting your spelling and grammar. And she is 100% correct in telling you that if you intend to be any kind of journalist [[if indeed blogging is journalism) you need to pay attention to your English skills. No one will ever take seriously any kind of journalistic enterprise where the writer can't spell and obviously doesn't proofread his copy. Running it through spell-check doesn't cut it. Whether you realize it or not, she and a lot of other people on this site are trying to help you when they correct you; they're not just making up stuff to pick on you. If you'd quit being so touchy about being corrected you might learn something.

[Stosh]

From what I've seen first hand, a large number of the homes being built in the exurbs are mcmansions, not duplexes or flats.

Somehow, I doubt you would recognize a McMansion if it flew from the clouds and squashed you like the Wicked Witch of the East ala Wizard of Oz. Really. Granted, people should, and probably will, downsize their housing choices. But blaming suburbia for the ills of society in general won't get you anywhere. They voted with their feet, and the exodus continues still.

It only makes sense financially to live within the city center and the surrounding burbs if you have a job in the central city. That is what kept me where I am at all these years. I hate to drive in rush hour traffic, and waste an hour or 2 in that traffic out of my life each working day. But people will rationalize the trip for comparative safety and peace and quiet.

There are absolutely no shortage of large homes in the City. Probably some could be considered the "McMansions" that you despise. Why don't you rail against their existence? Is there a difference? Believe it or not, those new homes you hate are 10 times greener than the homes you love in the city. Materials used, energy used, etc. Only thing different is the land use, which IS inefficient.

Agreed, and anything is possible. However, many of these people are the same ones who ran from the problems in the inner cities, and I find it hard to believe they just will not try to do it again. We will see just how far we've come soon enough, I guess.

The quality of life in Detroit is the problem. I'd bet if there were no incinerator, the police responded to crime, and things in government and taxes were fixed, that there could be a resurgance of home building, and people moving back. At least some. Not all. And I can't imagine that there's going to be a quick solution here.

[Downtown diva]

i will no longer argue with Detroit dad, or I will be put in detention again.

DetroitDad....you are correct.

the suburbs arent sustainable.

there, i said it.

[Stosh]

i will no longer argue with Detroit dad, or I will be put in detention again.

DetroitDad....you are correct.

the suburbs arent sustainable.

there, i said it.

Yes you did say it. But now you are wrong.

Now if you were to call someone names, that's different. Arguing a point should not be an issue, should it?

[DetroitDad]

Somehow, I doubt you would recognize a McMansion if it flew from the clouds and squashed you like the Wicked Witch of the East ala Wizard of Oz. Really. Granted, people should, and probably will, downsize their housing choices. But blaming suburbia for the ills of society in general won't get you anywhere. They voted with their feet, and the exodus continues still.

It only makes sense financially to live within the city center and the surrounding burbs if you have a job in the central city. That is what kept me where I am at all these years. I hate to drive in rush hour traffic, and waste an hour or 2 in that traffic out of my life each working day. But people will rationalize the trip for comparative safety and peace and quiet.

There are absolutely no shortage of large homes in the City. Probably some could be considered the "McMansions" that you despise. Why don't you rail against their existence? Is there a difference? Believe it or not, those new homes you hate are 10 times greener than the homes you love in the city. Materials used, energy used, etc. Only thing different is the land use, which IS inefficient.



The quality of life in Detroit is the problem. I'd bet if there were no incinerator, the police responded to crime, and things in government and taxes were fixed, that there could be a resurgance of home building, and people moving back. At least some. Not all. And I can't imagine that there's going to be a quick solution here.

Actually, I mostly agree with you. The city needs to be a safe and rewarding place in order to keep it's residents happy, and right now it just isn't. While it has noticeably improved in some areas, greater Downtown Detroit still leaves a lot to be desired.

[ASR89]

Damn. I hate you all.

[DetroitDad]

Right, back to the malls.

What is going in place of of Livonia Mall? I heard it was going to be similar to the Wonderland development. It doesn't seem like that area needs anymore strip malls. There are several other vacant commercial properties in the vicinity.

[Downtown diva]

Yes you did say it. But now you are wrong.

Now if you were to call someone names, that's different. Arguing a point should not be an issue, should it?

no comment.

[ASR89]

DetroitDad - The proposed plan for the former Livonia Mall site is a "open-air shopping centre", similar to Wonderland.

[crawford]

What a silly conversation. Detroit homes are not more environmentally efficient than suburban homes. Both Detroit and suburban homes are overwhelmingly detached homes with sizable yards.

Excepting downtown/midtown, almost all non-ghetto Detroit hoods are McMansions of an earlier era. How on earth is Palmer Woods more sustainable than Oakland Township? How is the University District more sustainable than Birmingham?

Many suburbs are actually considerably more environmentally sustainable than Detroit. Southfield is something like 40% multifamily housing, while Detroit proper is something like 10% multifamily.

[Stosh]

Damn. I hate you all.

I suppose that this thread, like other threads on the subject, got threadjacked by the same thing that the other thread did, from the first post:

A while ago, there was a thread about Livonia Mall. It had maybe 70+ posts, but towards the end, it turned into city-suburbs debate.

Sorry about that, if I've contributed to that same behavior.

In keeping with the original topic, I'd like to discuss the mall subject.

All the malls in the area that are suffering the vacancy rates that they are experiencing are dying because of one thing. Shoplifting. The shrinkage rate is alarming in retail. Small mom and pop stores in malls close first, since they are least able to cope with the losses. The smaller chains close next, then the larger ones, due to a combination of shoplifting and the lack of buying foot traffic.

You'll notice I said buying foot traffic. As it's been posted here before, suppressing the teens going to malls is a double edged sword. Some buy things, but then again some teens suppress older people from going to the mall by their actions, as well as shoplift as if it's an Olympic sport. The cost of security is driving mall stores out of business, not to mention the economy.

I'd think the lesson for all of us is, if you want somewhere to shop, and somewhere to go to, is to teach your children and grandchildren [[if possible) the value of respect for other people's property. And that applies outside of the retail setting as well.

[iheartthed]

Many suburbs are actually considerably more environmentally sustainable than Detroit. Southfield is something like 40% multifamily housing, while Detroit proper is something like 10% multifamily.

The difference is that Southfield's multi-family housing is completely surrounded by asphalt and gates, and all of it is virtually inaccessible without a private mode of transportation. None of the multi-family housing areas in Southfield is built to support a neighborhood commercial district, which leads to everyone having to drive for 5 minutes just to do something like buying a can of pop. Multiply the amount of energy required for 20,000 people to drive a car for 5 minutes just to get a soda, and compare that to the amount of energy that would be used if those 20,000 people could just walk to buy that can of pop. The answer is the difference between Southfield and Detroit. While it is true that much of Detroit's residents live in detached housing, the city is still laid out in a way as to allow for people to not have to drive everywhere for everything. Southfield, and most of suburban Detroit is not designed for that.

[Stosh]

The difference is that Southfield's multi-family housing is completely surrounded by asphalt and gates, and all of it is virtually inaccessible without a private mode of transportation. None of the multi-family housing areas in Southfield is built to support a neighborhood commercial district, which leads to everyone having to drive for 5 minutes just to do something like buying a can of pop. Multiply the amount of energy required for 20,000 people to drive a car for 5 minutes just to get a soda, and compare that to the amount of energy that would be used if those 20,000 people could just walk to buy that can of pop. The answer is the difference between Southfield and Detroit. While it is true that much of Detroit's residents live in detached housing, the city is still laid out in a way as to allow for people to not have to drive everywhere for everything. Southfield, and most of suburban Detroit is not designed for that.

I'm going to show you a website that I like. It's a walkability index. Here's 2 sites I just randomly selected.

First is Trolley Plaza Apartments, 1431 Washington Boulevard Detroit MI
http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.p...troit+MI&go=Go

Next is a randomly selected location, 25302 Lahser Southfield Michigan
http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.p...field+Michigan

To be quite honest, I'd really rather stock up on pop and take my chances in Southfield, as things are today.

[Stosh]

In all fairness, that doesn't really present a accurate look at sustainability. That's just a walkability index that I posted, which proves nothing in the real world other than you are young and healthy enough to hoof it for a distance for next to nothing.

Here's the real meat and potatoes site. A correct and accurate definition of sustainability. I'll give you an excerpt:

Sustainable development, sustainable community, sustainable industry, sustainable agriculture. You may have heard these words used in many different ways, but what does "sustainability" really mean and how can you tell if your community is sustainable? Sustainability is related to the quality of life in a community -- whether the economic, social and environmental systems that make up the community are providing a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all community residents, present and future.


How has the quality of life in your community changed over the last 20 or 40 years?

• How has your community changed economically?
  
  • Are there fewer or more good-paying jobs -- are people working more and earning less or are most people living well?
  • Is there more or less poverty and homelessness?
  • Is it easier or harder for people to find homes that they can afford?
• How has your community changed socially?
  
  • Is there less or more crime?
  • Are people less or more willing to volunteer?
  • Are fewer or more people running for public office or working on community boards?
• How has your community changed environmentally?
  
  • Has air quality in the urban areas gotten better or worse?
  • Are there more or fewer warnings about eating fish caught in local streams?
  • Has the water quality gotten better or worse?

Read the site link below and then answer the question relative to Detroit's sustainability.

http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/S...ity/index.html

[iheartthed]

I'm going to show you a website that I like. It's a walkability index. Here's 2 sites I just randomly selected.

First is Trolley Plaza Apartments, 1431 Washington Boulevard Detroit MI
http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.p...troit+MI&go=Go

Next is a randomly selected location, 25302 Lahser Southfield Michigan
http://www.walkscore.com/get-score.p...field+Michigan

To be quite honest, I'd really rather stock up on pop and take my chances in Southfield, as things are today.

Is this a rebuttal to what I said? You've been to Southfield, right?

First, that walkability site is extremely flawed in how it measures "walkability". The most fundamental flaw is that it doesn't even take into account whether an area even has sidewalks! I can assure you that many places in Southfield, indeed do not have sidewalks. [[Or if sidewalks do exist, they are built with no shoulder buffer right next to roadways where the average speed of vehicular traffic is 50 MPH, thus making for an uncomfortable journey for pedestrians.) Nor were many of Southfield's communities built with the idea in mind that sidewalks might ever be a useful thing for their residents.

In fact, I can't think of a single multi-family housing complex in Southfield that even has pedestrian access to the complex. To enter them all by foot, you either have to drive through a gate, or walk through a gate with the vehicular traffic that is entering/exiting the complex.

I mean if you like living in Southfield, then that's cool. Do you! You have every right to live there. But it's a bit dishonest to even try to portray that community, or most of suburban Detroit as something that could be as pedestrian friendly as the nieghborhoods in the city. It cannot happen unless you fundamentally change what those suburban communities were built to be. And changing those communities to be that will be no short order; it would probably be an order of magnitudes easier to just re-populate Detroit.

[Stosh]

Is this a rebuttal to what I said? You've been to Southfield, right?

First, that walkability site is extremely flawed in how it measures "walkability". The most fundamental flaw is that it doesn't even take into account whether an area even has sidewalks! I can assure you that many places in Southfield, indeed do not have sidewalks. [[Or if sidewalks do exist, they are built with no shoulder buffer right next to roadways where the average speed of vehicular traffic is 50 MPH, thus making for an uncomfortable journey for pedestrians.) Nor were many of Southfield's communities built with the idea in mind that sidewalks might ever be a useful thing for their residents.

In fact, I can't think of a single multi-family housing complex in Southfield that even has pedestrian access to the complex. To enter them all by foot, you either have to drive through a gate, or walk through a gate with the vehicular traffic that is entering/exiting the complex.

I mean if you like living in Southfield, then that's cool. Do you! You have every right to live there. But it's a bit dishonest to even try to portray that community, or most of suburban Detroit as something that could be as pedestrian friendly as the nieghborhoods in the city. It cannot happen unless you fundamentally change what those suburban communities were built to be. And changing those communities to be that will be no short order; it would probably be an order of magnitudes easier to just re-populate Detroit.

Like I said, not a fair assessment. Read my next post for the answer to your question. I could easily ride a bike or take a scooter, to anyplace in Southfield that has something to offer. And no, I don't live there. One doesn't really need to take public transportation or walk everywhere, either.

Some neighborhoods are pedestrian friendly in Detroit. Others, not so much. And that also depends on the people you encounter in your walk, doesn't it? Frankly, there are neighborhoods that I wouldn't be walking around in, or would have any business being in. Just saying. In Southfield, I'd have a better chance of getting to my destination, don't you think?

[iheartthed]

Like I said, not a fair assessment. Read my next post for the answer to your question. I could easily ride a bike or take a scooter, to anyplace in Southfield that has something to offer. And no, I don't live there. One doesn't really need to take public transportation or walk everywhere, either.

Some neighborhoods are pedestrian friendly in Detroit. Others, not so much. And that also depends on the people you encounter in your walk, doesn't it? Frankly, there are neighborhoods that I wouldn't be walking around in, or would have any business being in. Just saying. In Southfield, I'd have a better chance of getting to my destination, don't you think?

We are talking about two different things. I am speaking of the structure of the physical community, which is concrete. As I understand it, you are alluding to crime rates and current inhabitants, which is fluid. For instance, the neighborhood where I'm sitting right now in Brooklyn, Park Slope, was by most measures a ghetto just 15-20 years ago. Now, the household income levels of this neighborhood probably rival even the most affluent communities in Oakland County. But the physical layout of this neighborhood is virtually unchanged today from what it was 20 years ago, or 50 years ago, or probably even 100 years ago.

[Stosh]

We are talking about two different things. I am speaking of the structure of the physical community, which is concrete. As I understand it, you are alluding to crime rates and current inhabitants, which is fluid. For instance, the neighborhood where I'm sitting right now in Brooklyn, Park Slope, was by most measures a ghetto just 15-20 years ago. Now, the household income levels of this neighborhood probably rival even the most affluent communities in Oakland County. But the physical layout of this neighborhood is virtually unchanged today from what it was 20 years ago, or 50 years ago, or probably even 100 years ago.

Ok that's valid. But let's take a case in point in Detroit, Chene and Ferry. While the physical characteristics of the site hasn't changed, the streetscape and the neighborhood sure has. Use Google Maps to get a more accurate picture of what I am talking about.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...74.59,,0,-0.43

Try roaming down the side streets from here to get a little better picture of the neighborhood.