Detroit one of America's most "compact" cities; Warren one of most "sprawling"

[iheartthed]

Residents in more sprawling cities were likely to have fewer economic opportunities, be less healthy and have shorter life spans compared to people in more compact areas, according to a report released Wednesday by Smart Growth America.

For example, the more compact a city, the greater the chances that a child born in poverty will become rich. Similarly, the report found a three-year difference in life expectancy between residents in the most sprawling parts of the country verses the most compact.
"How we develop has a huge connection to how healthy we are in our communities," said Ilana Preuss, Smart Growth's chief of staff. However, she stressed that just because sprawl is related to negative social conditions, it does not necessarily cause them.


To calculate sprawl, the organization, which promotes reinvestment in existing cities, looked at four things:
-- The density of houses and jobs
-- The mix of residential and commercial buildings [[the greater the mix, the better)
-- The concentration of residential and commercial developments in downtown or other "activity" areas, like a waterfront
-- The "accessibility" of streets, including the length of blocks [[the shorter the better, because it means more cross walks) and the number of four-way intersections [[the more the better because it means greater street connectivity)

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/02/news...html?iid=s_mpm

Most compact cities:
1. New York, New York
2. San Francisco, California
3. Miami, Florida
4. Santa Ana, California
5. Detroit, Michigan

Most sprawling cities:
1. Atlanta, Georgia
2. Nashville, Tennessee
3. Riverside-San Bernadino, California
4. Warren, Michigan
5. Charlotte, North Carolina

[tfrodent]

These people had to do some very serious "cooking" in terms of defined parameters and analysis to rank Detroit #5 most compact. Even in its population prime, Detroit's population divided by surface area gave it an extremely diffuse density compared to older traditional cities [[pre-Sunbelt sprawl). In fact, in Detroit, there was always a fairly uniform spread of relatively low population; Detroit was always primarily a "house city," a fact in which it took great pride. The first prescient red flag came in Jane Jacobs' "Death and Life of American Cities." She cited Detroit, with its low population density, as a city likely to suffer decline, given the lack of a critical density to maintain interest and renewal in these neighborhoods. The only way I can even fathom these guys presently ranking Detroit #5 in compactness is to have written off completely areas that have undergone significant population decline [[i.e. these parts don't count at all now) and somehow to magnify the "density quotient" of the remaining parts. I don't see how even these parts have "compactness" that could be as great as New York and SF.

[nain rouge]

Well, tfrodent, there are two Detroits - the part built before the Great Depression, and the part built after. The part built before the '30s is very walkable. No, it was never as dense as the old East Coast cities, but it was packed pretty tight and full of business districts. It's hard to imagine today, as so much has been demolished - rows of apartment buildings, duplexes and entire business districts have been virtually erased.

On a street where today you see a random scattering of single-family houses, there was once also some duplexes, an apartment or two [[or more), and a corner store. It's a legacy we've lost and are unlikely to get back. The newer, outer neighborhoods [[built after the Depression) tend to dominate the modern visual scene, giving the impression that Detroit was always single-family suburbia. But it was always a tale of two cities in reality.

If one was to rate Detroit on it's bones - ignoring all the rotting flesh - then I suppose it could rate quite high on compactness. It would be interesting to see their methodology.

[313WX]

Well, tfrodent, there are two Detroits - the part built before the Great Depression, and the part built after. The part built before the '30s is very walkable. No, it was never as dense as the old East Coast cities, but it was packed pretty tight and full of business districts. It's hard to imagine today, as so much has been demolished - rows of apartment buildings, duplexes and entire business districts have been virtually erased.

On a street where today you see a random scattering of single-family houses, there was once also some duplexes, an apartment or two [[or more), and a corner store. It's a legacy we've lost and are unlikely to get back. The newer, outer neighborhoods [[built after the Depression) tend to dominate the modern visual scene, giving the impression that Detroit was always single-family suburbia. But it was always a tale of two cities in reality.

All good points.

Detroit during its peak was only a bit less dense than Philadelphia and South Side Chicago, which is pretty darn dense.

[Jaybiz]

Detroit was never all that dense, on the east side most of the housing built around City Airport & all the way to 8 mile city limits is, in its architecture[[not talking about current neglect & blight) almost indistinguishable from inner-ring suburbs being that its detached single family housing, driveway, garage & decent sized lawn [[basically everything north of Conner) & on the far north west side it resembles the housing of the outer suburbs built in 1950's-1970's. it's a far cry from New York or Chicago both where I lived but grew up in Detroit proper & old neighborhood is currently considered worst zip code in the US but living there from birth in 1978-1995 it was nothing more than a suburban neighborhood working class majority white hood nothing like Brooklyn or Chicago's working class ethic white areas which are intensely dense. Put it this way, most of what's left of Detroit housing has at least 10 feet of space between homes & those homes are single family so even at full capacity not considered dense unless someone was from a rural or far flung suburban area.

[Jaybiz]

I'm willing to put money that south Warren is more dense than Detroit , Warrens overall density [[including north end) is over over 4,000 sq mi & Detroit's is about 5,000 sq mi. Not much a difference & considering a typical suburb of Chicago like Berwyn has a Density of 14,564/sq mi, your facts bout Detroit
are a mess!

[JBMcB]

Not much a difference & considering a typical suburb of Chicago like Berwyn has a Density of 14,564/sq mi, your facts bout Detroit
are a mess!

It's not just about density - it's about crosswalk ratios, city waterfront commercial residential mogrification, block length retro-diameter ascendency, and lots of other squishy variables chosen to make the case they want to make.

I used to work with people who did studies like this. You basically screw around with SPSS until you get something interesting, and you have a paper. Yay social sciences!

[313WX]

Detroit was never all that dense, on the east side most of the housing built around City Airport & all the way to 8 mile city limits is, in its architecture[[not talking about current neglect & blight) almost indistinguishable from inner-ring suburbs being that its detached single family housing, driveway, garage & decent sized lawn [[basically everything north of Conner) & on the far north west side it resembles the housing of the outer suburbs built in 1950's-1970's. it's a far cry from New York or Chicago both where I lived but grew up in Detroit proper & old neighborhood is currently considered worst zip code in the US but living there from birth in 1978-1995 it was nothing more than a suburban neighborhood working class majority white hood nothing like Brooklyn or Chicago's working class ethic white areas which are intensely dense. Put it this way, most of what's left of Detroit housing has at least 10 feet of space between homes & those homes are single family so even at full capacity not considered dense unless someone was from a rural or far flung suburban area.

See the below map of Detroit's population density from 1950. A lot of the city had a population of 20,000 people per sq. mi. [[on par with much of South Side Chicago) or greater. Very little of the city had a population density lower than 5,000 people per sq. mi.



A lot of the city was built like Hamtramck is now, not like the 48205 zip code.

[nain rouge]

I'm willing to put money that south Warren is more dense than Detroit , Warrens overall density [[including north end) is over over 4,000 sq mi & Detroit's is about 5,000 sq mi. Not much a difference & considering a typical suburb of Chicago like Berwyn has a Density of 14,564/sq mi, your facts bout Detroit are a mess!

Good thing you didn't put down any money yet, because you're wrong. Warren's density is just BELOW 4,000 people per square mile, and a quick fact check uncovers that the 48091 zip code [[South Warren around Van Dyke, the part of the city most like Detroit in terms of development) has a density of roughly 3,900 people per square mile, which is basically identical to the city's overall density level. South Warren is almost exclusively single-family, and the lots are about as big as what you would've gotten in an old ritzy Detroit neighborhood like Boston Edison.

You have to ask yourself, how did Detroit achieve a max population density of over 13,000 people per square mile, especially if many of the outer neighborhoods are comparable to South Warren? Well, it's because pre-Depression Detroit was DENSE as heck! You just can't see how anymore because so much has been demolished and replaced by empty lots or less dense modernist developments.

[Hermod]

Back in 1950, the Warren downtown was miniscule. Warren then incorporated the entire township and the downtown disappeared. Troy was pretty much the same. The only "downtown" that Troy had was a little strip center called Big Beaver on Rochester Rd just north of Big Beaver [[16 Mile).. I guess Troy density got a kick up from Warren by all of the office space out along Big Beaver [[16 Mile).

[Bham1982]

Not much a difference & considering a typical suburb of Chicago like Berwyn has a Density of 14,564/sq mi, your facts bout Detroit
are a mess!

Wait, what?

Berwyn is hardly a "typical" Chicago suburb. It actually has much higher density than Chicago itself and has like 5-6 times the density of a typical Chicago suburb.

The reason Berwyn is so dense is because it's very small and packed in with Mexican migrants. It's like the Hamtramck or East Dearborn of Chicago.

[Bham1982]

Well, it's because pre-Depression Detroit was DENSE as heck! You just can't see how anymore because so much has been demolished and replaced by empty lots or less dense modernist developments.

Remember that density measures people, not buildings. An area can have high population density, without high structural density [[see much of LA). I suspect that, based on that previously posted map, much of 1950 Detroit density was blacks being redlined/packed into ghettos near downtown, as the high density tracts very roughly mirror the majority black parts of the city. That does not mean that these areas had super-high structural density, though.

[iheartthed]

Clarification:

The article was referring to the Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI [[Wayne County) and the Warren-Troy-Farmington, MI [[Oakland and Macomb Counties) metropolitan divisions.

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/do...prawl-2014.pdf

[DetroitPlanner]

This is one of the stupidest comparisons I have ever seen.

[Bham1982]

So Wayne County is a different "metropolitan division" from the rest of the metro. Who knew? [[and why did these "researchers" not use obvious comparables like MSA, CSA, or urban area?)

[iheartthed]

So Wayne County is a different "metropolitan division" from the rest of the metro. Who knew? [[and why did these "researchers" not use obvious comparables like MSA, CSA, or urban area?)

It's quite often split out that way in the national media. Both divisions have similar populations too...

[poobert]

And here's the thing: I live in Detroit. I don't have children, but if I did, I would raise them in Detroit. And I'm not fan of Warren, Michigan.

However, can one really directly imply that children thrive in Detroit over Warren?? Detroit is full of broken homes, broken families, and children out of control. Warren may be crappy but it isn't total chaos - yet.

I don't like agendas either way. Just the facts, please.

[mwilbert]

There may be many places where this analysis goes wrong, but here is one thing I would note.

Any definition of "compact" that has any relationship to the normal meaning of the term and also encompasses Detroit has to be ignoring most of the city, presumably on the grounds that there isn't anything interesting there. If so, everything being counted is more or less inside Grand Blvd--and probably mostly between I-75 and the Lodge south of Grand. But the city that most of Detroit's people live in, especially the poor ones, is not inside that compact vision. It is pretty hard to see how that compactness benefits someone living out by the former Herman Gardens, especially given the inadequate transit available. However, as the compact central area continues to repopulate, it will probably be quite nice for the people who actually live there.

[nain rouge]

Back in 1950, the Warren downtown was miniscule. Warren then incorporated the entire township and the downtown disappeared. Troy was pretty much the same. The only "downtown" that Troy had was a little strip center called Big Beaver on Rochester Rd just north of Big Beaver [[16 Mile).. I guess Troy density got a kick up from Warren by all of the office space out along Big Beaver [[16 Mile)

Obviously, in regards to Warren, you're referring to the Mound & Chicago area. However, by 1950, there was already an alternate "downtown" in Warren - if you will - along Van Dyke up to 9 Mile, complete with a movie theatre. It was an old school, East Dearborn-style development, except cheaper and scaled down a bit.

Not that it matters much for your argument, but it's an interesting slice of Warren history that's often forgotten.

Remember that density measures people, not buildings.

Oh thanks, Bham1982. I didn't know that!

But in all seriousness, Chicago in 1950 had a population density of just over 15,000 people per square mile, only 2,000 more than Detroit. And we all know Chicago, the holy grail of Midwest urban density on this message board, had its own fair share of redlining.

So ask yourself, how was Detroit almost as dense as Chicago if it was all single-family suburbia? Because there's a dirty little secret we all like to sidestep, that our inner city has been almost completely dismantled over the years. It wasn't just downtown.

Here's a quick example on Plum Street. It used to look like this. See the random apartments and stores? Now it looks like this. If one has enough time on one's hands, you can find tons of similar examples, some much more stark. I know I once posted a picture of what was almost an entire block of Midtown-style apartments, and is now an urban prairie.

A bunch of events like that, repeated over and over for 5 decades, has turned what was once a major American city into a shadow of its self. You can stay in denial all you want, swear that all of Detroit was like 6 Mile & Evergreen, but that just wasn't true.

[nain rouge]

Basically, in cities like New York, they rebuild to increase density and economic activity. Only in backwards cities like Detroit do you rebuild to decrease density and economic activity.

[313WX]

Basically, in cities like New York, they rebuild to increase density and economic activity. Only in backwards cities like Detroit do you rebuild to decrease density and economic activity.

To be fair though, NYC continues to grow while Detroit continues to rapidly shrink.

Why build to increase density when your population is declining?

[Scottathew]

This article really doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't know why they attach the word "sprawl" to the parameters they are using.

[animatedmartian]

Why build to increase density when your population is declining?

Yea in most scenarios, cities increase in density only if space is becoming scare. However, space is currently not a problem in Detroit. Instead, the problem is distance become of the abundant space.

[nain rouge]

To be fair though, NYC continues to grow while Detroit continues to rapidly shrink.

Because we're backwards. You can try to spin how you want, but we're shrinking for a reason.

We're backwards.

[DetroitPlanner]

Because we're backwards. You can try to spin how you want, but we're shrinking for a reason.

We're backwards.

We're not shrinking anymore.

Just released July 2013 numbers from the Census Bureau bode well for the region:

• Population – Southeast Michigan gained 4,540 people last year, which is the second consecutive year of population growth after a decade of population decline. Current population is about 6,500 more that the 2010 Census. It is 1.1 percent higher than SEMCOG’s 2040 forecast for 2013.
• Employment – After bottoming out in 2009, the region has been gaining jobs for four consecutive years now, adding 146,420 total jobs, or 7.9 percent. In contrast, the U.S. gained only 4.8 percent from the bottom [[2010).
• Building permits – Just like jobs, the region’s building permits have been increasing for four consecutive years now. In 2013, residential permits increased 34.8 percent over 2012, with 7,564 new units permitted in 2013.

http://smcg.informz.net/InformzDataS...anceId=3919545

The question of density is also a puzzling one. Density is not necessarily good for everything.