Suburbs are unsustainable?

**bailey** · July-13-09, 08:28 AM

All the suburbs are unsustainable when Detroit cuts off their water.

Not GP Farms. it pumps its own.

**ThaFuzz** · July-13-09, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Downtown diva

can somebody on the "unsustainable" side, please tell me which suburbs are unsustainable?
dont give me the hooe about the Middle class, blah blah blah.

tell me which suburbs will no longer be around.... or continue as suburbs.....

I predict that the far-flung, subdivision- and strip mall-rich townships like Commerce, Macomb, etc. will fare the worst. They lack historical central business and residential districts where population condensation can grow around. The housing stock does not have the quality for longevity, especially compared to Detroit and most of the inner ring suburbs.

As for the sustainability argument...much of what DetroitDad was blathering on about concerning peak oil, etc. has a few grains of truth. Wages for workers will continue to shrink [[thx greedy corporate execs and shareholders!) as the cost of personal transportation will grow, or at least take a bigger slice out of one's income pie. It won't be practical or likely for an older, more established resident to relocate, but their children will have an easier time considering relocation.

**wolverine** · July-13-09, 08:37 AM

Suburbs unsustainable against what?...All cities? Detroit? Are we talking environmental sustainability or the ability of a place to survive in terms of efficiency in operations and management?

Wow, how does one gauge if in fact we are to look at Detroit. There's really very little things sustainable about Detroit unless you are talking about the city naturally returning to nature. Then again, that lends itself to an image of semi-rural living, where homes are becoming increasingly dispersed.

People also have to take bus or car to reach necessary destinations. I'd be wiling to bet there are more people in a suburban setting that are closer to food, banking, and other basic needs than a resident of Detroit, who probably has travel much further to reach these places. I'm talking about one with options, not the limited selections I've seen in some of Detroit's "food marts"

Demolition is unsustainable. Who's demolishing most of the buildings lately. [[Hopefully materials aren't going to landfill) The air is also ridiculously polluted, and so is the ground, and the water. Not to say oil from mall parking lots and Co2 gas emitted getting around in the burbs is any better, but it does make you think who's really doing the damage.

There's also government waste. Inefficient use of work hours to keep all those lights on and the air conditioning running. C'mon we know there's more work to do.

------------

Now if we were to match suburbs up against parts of Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, SF, etc we'd have a completely different story. Hell, Ann Arbor.... I haven't driven my car in weeks. With increasing energy costs, urban living is much more sustainable in functioning cities. Business and industry resources can be used more effectively since the infrastructure is all in one place and people need not travel far. I can go on, but I'm sure other people will beat the issue to death or at least confuse it in some way.

**Danny** · July-13-09, 08:57 AM

The bad side of living the suburbs are:

1. Accesibility to go to any big box superstores with a car instead of walking, jogging or riding a bike that would lead to obesity.

2. Living at some "Levittownesque" home which lead into further property expansion and neighborhood code appeals.

3. A suburban neighborhood that is too quiet, hard to make friends with your neighbors.

4. Some suburbs and its developers back in the 1960s begin to experiment on the poor and low-come residents to make sure that they equate with HUD ethnic guidelines. The result would be quite diasterous luring in drug dealers, gangs and hard core kids. The Middle class started to move further out the ex-urbs and the inner ring suburbs become instant crime laden ghettos. That is what happen in Inkster, Mt. Clemens, Eastpointe, Harper Woods, Royal Oak TWP. Southfield, River Rouge, Ecorse, Pontiac, Lathrup Village, Redford TWP. and Oak Park.

5. Other inner ring suburbs that would become poor experimental residential living are: Westland, Wayne, Romulus, Taylor, Melvindale, Lincoln Park, Ferndale, Hazel Park, Warren, Roseville, and Clinton TWP. Thoses suburbs have lost some normal appeal and will be tranforming into instant ghetto in a couple years unless some maintenance has to be approve by updating city and sub-division codes.

6. Some suburbs experience racial protection just to keep Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Hispanics out. Livonia, Eastpointe, Roseville Lincoln Park, Dearborn and Warren's police force are enforcing racial profiling standards to detect any ethnic folks who might be driving low riding cars, cars with tinted windows, cars that have gang affliation, ethnic folks wearing gang chothing or traditional religious chothing, a person who just black, Hispanic, Arab or Jew minding his or her business.

7. Suburban neighbors just simply avoiding your ethnic hospitality.

**Thames** · July-13-09, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by East Detroit

All the suburbs are unsustainable when Detroit cuts off their water.

Wyandotte has their own water.

Where do you think the suburbs got their water before Detroit came in? If Detroit cut off the water, homes could always go back to well and spectic systems.

There are still homes in Redford that aren't hooked up to the sewers.

Lorax · July-13-09, 09:25 AM

Danny, your point # 4 doesn't make any sense. These inner ring suburbs to my knowledge aren't "ghettos" by any stretch of the imaginagion. Royal Oak, Southfield, Lathrup Village look nothing like Grand River & Wyoming in Detroit.

Until it starts down that road, don't presume it has, or is, going to happen. Flight from the city's core can't and won't continue in dire economic times.

**French777** · July-13-09, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by rajdet

If Detroit had the best school system in the state, and a world class mass transit system, would we even be having this discussion?

French, why do you choose to live in Rochester Hills?

Because Im only 17

DetroitDad · July-13-09, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Gannon

DetroitDad, all due respect...but what the feck do you mean THERE NEVER WAS AN INFORMATION AGE?

You then go on to PROVE that we're in the middle of it.

Open your eyes man, and enjoy the age you were born into...it is always toughest to see the existing paradigm BECAUSE YOU NEVER LIVED when information was tough to locate and disseminate!

We ARE in the Information Age, it started right after the Technological Age.

Agricultural Revolution took roughly 3000 years from its 'beginning' to where it is now, still staggering in third world nations.

Industrial Revolution took nearly 300 years, one order of magnitude shorter. Same thing, it is still playing out in fringe areas to our economy and lifestyle.

Technological Revolution took about 30 years, again an order of magnitude shorter.

The Information Revolution may have been 3 years and IT may be over...according to the rules set by Alvin Toffler and his wife Heidi when they wrote The Third Wave. When they penned that piece they truly had no idea where we were going, most futurists are stymied.

So...just because you missed it doesn't mean you're not enjoying the fruits of it.

Cheers!

The information age was really just the pinacle of the Industrial Age.

**DetroitPlanner** · July-13-09, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by crawford

If 15 and Livernois is unsustainable, then so is 7 and Livernois. If the suburbs fail at some point, there is no reason to think that Detroit city proper would fare any better.

I would agree, the whole region has severe sustainability issues right now. As more people leave, we are left with too much infrastructure and not enough people to adequetely fund it. Currently Detroit proper is probably losing people at a greater rate than it has lost them in the last fifty years due to the new cheap housing that has sprouted up in better school districts, where there are jobs, and no local income tax issues.

I know in the next few years I am going to need to make a descision to move simply due to the economy, and I am going to move to where it is most logical. As of right now however, there is no real logical place to move as I could be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

**Danny** · July-13-09, 10:24 AM

Lorax,

It's quite true. Suburban developers did allow some poor ethnic folks to occupy their new housing projects sub-division back then especially blacks, Jews and Hispanics. It started around late 1960s to the present. Suburban developers allow poor and low-income folks to sub-division that was deemed "normal" since the late 1920s to the 1940s in the inner ring areas. Later, once these poor and low-income residents couldn't afford to pay further mortages and rental costs, they will be forced to move out and bring in another sucker to live in those divisions. It was a urban experiment that was going to fail according to the Centers of Urban Studies for University of San Antonio. This urban experiment of the poor to move into the inner ring suburban would equate the HUD living standards and allow more Middle Class familes to move further to ex-urban sub-divisions and its happening now. As a result those inner ring suburbs that looked normal has now becoming a instant ghetto where crime, drugs and hard core kids hang out. Even through you and other people don't see the inner ring suburbs as ghettos, it doesn't look like a normal suburb today.

Go take a look when you go to River Rouge, Ecorse, Redford TWP. Inskter suburban neighborhoods. You will see that some suburban neighborhoods have lost some normal appeal.

DetroitDad · July-13-09, 10:28 AM

Tin foil tent? Look, I don't actually believe all these things will happen, but I think it is likely that at least one or two will without proper intervention. Such a scenario could really put us in a long term depression, and be very painful for us. Remember, Detroit in economic collapse essentially caught a immune disease, when the rest of the world caught a cold, Detroit had the flu. In our current and future condition that will ring true for large portions of our entire country.

I really used to think those people were crazy too. Do the research for yourself before you dismiss me. Why am I wrong?

**Danny** · July-13-09, 11:00 AM

Another thing the Suburbs are unsustainable is the TRAFFIC! A lecturer from the Centers of Urban Studies for University of San Antonio contended that traffic congestion is a constant because it would grow to fill compacity. That is what happen to Telegraph RD, Michigan Ave, Sibley Rd, Canton Center Rd, Ford Rd, Gratiot Ave, Orchard, Lake Rd, Van Dyke Rd. near 14 Mile Rd. and many more. Suburban developers wanted to have 2 to 44 lanes of congested traffic to fill compacity and lured folks to their big box stores before you go home, work or other business. Suburban developers also want to solve the traffic congestion problems by building highways [[ Like the Haggerty Connector for example). However it would lead to more traffic congestion later in the future as long as a township, village and city propose more development.

Traffic congestion can be solve be mixed used planning. Eliminate constant trips ot reduced trips or provide public transit by connecting interurban and inter suburban rail lines like the Metra Lines from Chicago to various suburbs and ex-urbs, it works! I even tried it and ride it when I went to Chicago to Guinee, Ill

Buildling HWYs in the suburbs will cause people to make crazy decisions buy a home next to a local HWY about 20 minutes to work or a shopping mall. Soon that same route for the surburbanite who use that HWY will be caught up in a traffic jam that would take up to 1 hour.

DetroitDad · July-13-09, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Downtown diva

can somebody on the "unsustainable" side, please tell me which suburbs are unsustainable?
dont give me the hooe about the Middle class, blah blah blah.

tell me which suburbs will no longer be around.... or continue as suburbs.....

Ones that are overly dependant on cars to daily life, are overly dependant on unsustainable industry [[automotive, airline, etc.), have no urban center to attract people, and don't have the old infrastructure as a guide to build off of.

DetroitDad · July-13-09, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Downtown diva

what does this have to do with the benefits of living in Detroit? What does this have to do with the sustainability of the suburbs?

It shows that the current middle class is not sustainable and explains why. If you watch the video you'll see how the automobile along with other fixed expenses are helping financially drain middle class suburbia. Furthermore, it shows that the state of the middle class in America is on the brink of collapse, we also know that Metro Detroit is now doing worse than it was when that video was made. Since all those fixed costs are just a little bit higher around here, what does that say about the state of Metro Detroit's middle class.

Our current system in this country is not sustainable.

DetroitDad · July-13-09, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by ThaFuzz

I predict that the far-flung, subdivision- and strip mall-rich townships like Commerce, Macomb, etc. will fare the worst. They lack historical central business and residential districts where population condensation can grow around. The housing stock does not have the quality for longevity, especially compared to Detroit and most of the inner ring suburbs.

As for the sustainability argument...much of what DetroitDad was blathering on about concerning peak oil, etc. has a few grains of truth. Wages for workers will continue to shrink [[thx greedy corporate execs and shareholders!) as the cost of personal transportation will grow, or at least take a bigger slice out of one's income pie. It won't be practical or likely for an older, more established resident to relocate, but their children will have an easier time considering relocation.

Right, much of that was cut and pasted from past writings and posts, so if it comes across that way, that is probably why.

I agree that it will be the young people who will be moving to the cities. To many older people either have their houses paid off or are underwater on their mortgages, so they are going to have to stay and make the best of it, just as so many had to stay and make the best of it when Detroit fell.

**Danny** · July-13-09, 11:19 AM

America doesn't have to be sustainable. We can create a upside down society and people will like it or hate it.

**Danny** · July-13-09, 11:22 AM

Detroit Dad,

I can see people in Macomb County moving up to 28 Mile Rd. thanks to unsustainable suburban development. No wonder that the famed Christopher Columbus/ Earl Memorial HWY was built connection from VanDyke Rd and 18 Mile Rd to 32 Mile Rd. That's not going to solve the traffic congestion problems.

**Gannon** · July-13-09, 11:29 AM

The information age was really just the pinacle of the Industrial Age.

You either don't understand the difference between Industry and Technology and Information...or I don't understand pinnacles.

The height of the industrial age would be it's pinnacle. That seemed to happen a while ago, before I was born. In the case of just the US automobile segment of industry, I would put their peak at roughly 1957...not in sales figures, but in strength and dominance. It has been downhill since...or at least seriously diluted.

So...again, it seems all we're doing is arguing America's decline...how soon will we go the way of the Roman Empire?! It seems we're already well on our way down that path...

Toolbox · July-13-09, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitDad

Until recently, the general consensus was to rebuild the suburbs into walkable communities complete with mini downtowns and all, planned urbanism [[new urbanism). Unfortunately, that idea has come up against the reality that is the current depression/recession.

I must live in a fairytale land suburb, I can walk and get 90% of my daily needs meet. I don't live in a planned community either.

**R8RBOB** · July-13-09, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by rajdet

If Detroit had the best school system in the state, and a world class mass transit system, would we even be having this discussion?

Agreed!!!! I have been saying for years that Detroit will behind the times as long as the city isn't the hub for mass transit.

I was talking with my cousin yesterday and he was commenting on how many suburbanites are buying up homes in the Grandmount area. Thanks to the reduced cost of buying a house in Detroit, people from the suburbs can leave their soon to be foreclosed home for one in Detroit's better neighborhoods. As for schools, well Detroit is now home to a number of charter schools.

DetroitDad · July-13-09, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Gannon

You either don't understand the difference between Industry and Technology and Information...or I don't understand pinnacles.

The height of the industrial age would be it's pinnacle. That seemed to happen a while ago, before I was born. In the case of just the US automobile segment of industry, I would put their peak at roughly 1957...not in sales figures, but in strength and dominance. It has been downhill since...or at least seriously diluted.

So...again, it seems all we're doing is arguing America's decline...how soon will we go the way of the Roman Empire?! It seems we're already well on our way down that path...

I view it as a tool used at the end of the industrial age.

It's not really relevant, that line was cut and pasted from an old post. That point is definitely arguable, but how I see it is that the industry is still there, bigger than ever, it's just not in America anymore. The Information Age and globalization grew to help commerce and industry [[just in time delivery, cheaper labor overseas, telecommuting, e-commerce. etc.). To me it seems like it's a part of the Industrial Age, and is very reliant on industry and cheap fuel just to survive.

DetroitDad · July-13-09, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Toolbox

I must live in a fairytale land suburb, I can walk and get 90% of my daily needs meet. I don't live in a planned community either.

What suburb?

**Gannon** · July-13-09, 11:52 AM

Whoa, and I see information tied to Technology, but that directly NOT tied to industry as you say. How exactly does the price of gas affect my internet use?

If anything Information riding Technology is exactly independent of Industry...although Corporate Capitalist Industry has certainly taken full advantage of it by seeking out far and distant sources of labor and materials they otherwise wouldn't have been able to tap.

But the core of industry will learn that doing things the corporate capitalist way is unsustainable in itself, which certainly dovetails with our discussion at hand...we might be discussing merely two facets of the whole problem!

**Gannon** · July-13-09, 12:13 PM

Didn't make myself clear, too many things running around in my brain.

Industry is only continuing to grow NOW due to Technology and Information, but both of them seem independent of the first. They seem to be different babies, and I cannot lump them together in any way.

DetroitDad · July-13-09, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Stosh

It has nothing to do with it. At all.

Gannon, glad to see that you recognized that flaw in his thinking. Among many.

I think the foil hat won't cover this. Maybe a foil tent. Or just wrap yourself up in it.

When someone completely contradicts themselves in separate thread responses, it's just time to let it go. Over here, Detroit isn't sustainable, but more sustainable than the suburbs. The other thread, Detroit is sustainable. Make up your mind.

You got that from me pointing out the problems with suburbia? This city vs. suburb thing is all in your head. There is only one Detroit, and that is it's people. If you live in Metro Detroit you are a Detroiter.